State of India Vs Balwant Singh Rajoana (and others)

In the Court of Ravi Kumar Sondhi,
Additional Sessions Judge,
Chandigarh

Session Case No

2 -A of 1995 (R
14.03.2003)

Computer ID No.

36014R0122162003

Date of Institution:

18 . 12 .1995 .

Date of Decision

27.07 .2007

Complainant :

State (through CBI)

Versus

Accused :

1 .

Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta

son of Sh.Jaswinder Singh,
R/o H. No. 981, Phase IV,
SAS Nagar, Mohali (PB) ,
permanent address:
H. No. 1431, Gali No. 4,

Guru Nanak Nagar,

Patiala .

2 . Lakhwinder Singh alias
Lakha alias Hero
son of Sh.Darshan Singh
r/o near Shiv Temple,
Village Kansal
District Ropar,
permanent address : H . No . 15 6 ,
Gali No. 9, Guru Nanak Nagar,
Opp. Gurbax Colony, Patiala .

3. Jagtar Singh alias Tara
son of Sh. Sadhu Singh
r/o 226/3, Arjun Nagar,
New Delhi;
permanent address:
Village Dekwala, P.S Sadar,
Ropar .

Proclaimed Offender)

1

4. Navjot Singh

son of Sh.Tarlok Singh,
R/o H. No. 889, Phase III-B-2
Mohali Distt. Ropar.

5. Nasib Singh

son of Sh. Bulant Singh
r/o Village Jhingra Kalan
Distt. Ropar (Punjab)

6. Shamsher Singh

s/o Sh.Surjit Singh,
r/o Village Ukasi Jattan,
P.S. Sadar, Rajpura
Distt. Patiala (Punj ab)

7 . Balwant Singh

s/o Sh.Malkiat Singh,
r/o H.N0.68-A, Rattan Nagar,
Patiala (Punjab)
permanent address: Village
Rajoana Kalan, P.S. Sudhar,
Distt . Ludhiana (Punjab)

8. Jagtar Singh Hawara
S/o Sh.Sher Singh,
r/o Village Hawara ,
Police Station Khamano,
Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib (Pb) .

Name of the assassin
accused

Dilawar Singh,
s/o Harnek Singh,
r/o H.No.23, Gali No. 12
Guru Nanak Nagar,
Patiala .

F.I.R.No : 96 dated 31.8.1995

2

Police Station

North now Sector 3,
Chandigarh .

R.C.No. of CBI

9/S/95 SIU.V/SIC. II/CBI
/DSPE, dated 1 . 9 .1995 .

Offence alleged

Under Sections 302, 307
read with Section 120-B
IPC and under Section 3
& 4 of the Explosive
Substances Act.

Date of Commitment

Vide orders dated
11.12.1995, 19.12.1995
and 19.2.1996
respectively .

Argued by : Sh . S . K . Saxena assisted by Sh.R.K.

Handa & Sh.Rajan Malhotra, Spl.P.P
for the CBI.

Sh.D.S. Chimney, Sh . A . S . Chahal ,

Sh . R . C . Sharma and Sh.S.S.Bawa for

accused Gurmeet Singh, Navjot Singh,
Jagtar Singh Hawara, Shamsher
Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and
Nasib Singh.

Accused Balwant Singh in person.

Present: All the above accused in custody

except Accused Jagtar Singh Tara who
is declared proclaimed offender.

JUDGMENT:

31 August, 1995 was another black day for

the people of Punjab, when Shri Beant Singh, then
Chief Minister of Punjab, was assassinated in the
Porch of the Punjab & Haryana Civil Secretariat,

3

known to be the most secure place, being the seat
of Capital of two States Punjab & Haryana. It is
alleged that the assassin was Dilawar Singh, who
was made to act as a human bomb and he got himself
exploded at 5.10 P.M at a very close proximity to
to the Beant Singh, who was to got into his Car for
onward journey.

2. As per prosecution Shri Beant Singh, has
been assassinated pursuant to a deep rooted
criminal conspiracy master minded by Babbar khalsa
International, an International Terrorist
Organization as it perceived that Shri Beant Singh
has usurped the power after 1992 election in the
State of Punjab and is responsible for the
indiscriminate atrocities against the innocent
Sikhs. It was under these circumstances that all
the above named accused persons were put on trial
for this assassination being part and parcel of the
well laid and deep rooted conspiracy for
commission of the of offences punishable under
sections 302,307 read with section 120-B of IPC and
under section 3,4, and 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act.

3. Initially, a case FIR No. 96, dated
31.8.1995, was registered at Police Station, North,
now Sector 3, Chandigarh for commission of offences
under sections 302, 307 read with Section 120-B of
the IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Explosive Substances

4

Act, on the statement of C.Pala Ram of Haryana
Armed Police. However, later on the investigations
of this case was transferred to Delhi Special
Police Establishment (C.B.I) vide Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, letter
No. 406/JS (UT) /95/S dated 31.8.1995 and this case
was re-registered as RC No.9(S)/95-

SIU. V/CBI/SIC . I I /New Delhi on 1.9.1995 under
sections 302/307 read with Section 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3 & 4 of the
Explosive Substance Act.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

4 . The sequence of events along with a brief

history of the factual back ground, which preceded
and succeeded the assassination, as the same would
unfurl the conspectus of the case and leading to
the registration of this case and the prosecution
of accused persons, in brief, is that a case vide
FIR No. 96/95 dated 31.8.1995 was registered at
Police Station North, Chandigarh under Section
302/307/120-B IPC and Section 3, 4 of the Explosive
Substances Act on the statement of Constable Pala
Ram of Haryana Armed Police to the effect that he
was on sentry duty on the VIP Gate of the Punjab
and Haryana Civil Secretariat Chandigarh, in the
evening of 31.8.1995. HC Ajaib Singh of Haryana
Police and some other personnel of Punjab Police
and Punjab Secretariat were also on duty at the

5

VIP gate along with him. The motor cavalcade of
S.Beant Singh, then CM Punjab, was lined up in the
porch at about 5.05 p.m under the security cover of
Punjab Police, NSG and other security personnel.

5. S.Beant Singh, then Chief Minister, came

down at the VIP gate at about 5.10 p.m accompanied
by security personnel and some other persons. Some
of the security personnel took position in their
respective vehicles. As soon as the CM Punjab got
into his car parked in front of VIP gate, a
powerful bomb explosion took place as a result of
which the car of the CM Punjab and some other cars
caught fire. The CM Punjab and several security
personnel and others were killed on the spot or
sustained injuries. Constable Pala Ram has further
stated that the aforesaid bomb explosion was caused
by the terrorists with the object of killing

5. Beant Singh and security personnel etc. Pala Ram
has further stated that he was also injured in the
explosion and was sent to P.G.I Chandigarh for
treatment .

6. The case was initially investigated by the
Police of U.T of Chandigarh. Nanha Ram, SHO P.S
North after reaching the spot along with other
Police parties, inspected the spot and found that
the car in which, Shri Beant Singh, Chief Minister,
was sitting, when this explosion took place, was
found to be burnt and badly damaged and the dead

6

body of Sardar Beant Singh was found in a badly
charred condition at the back seat of the Car No.
PB-08-3469 and the remaining cars were also
damaged. He also found that an Ambassador car
bearing registration No. DBA-9598, was found to be
parked at some distance from the place of
occurrence towards the side of Haryana Secretariat
and was lying abandoned. In the meanwhile police
photographs and Dr.Mishra of Forensic Science
Laboratory, Punjab also reached at the spot and
took the photographs of the scene of crime as it
exists at the spot.

7. All the injured lying at the spot were
removed to the various hospitals whereas dead
bodies were sent to various hospital for postmortem
examination. Nanha Ram also took into possession
two dismembered legs and one sundered head of an
unidentified person and the same was also sent to
the Hospital for examination.

8. As a result of bomb explosion it was found
that following 17 persons were killed: -

1. Sardar Beant Singh (CM) s/o Captain Hazura
Singh, r/o H.No.45 Sector-2 Chandigarh
(Chief Minister of Punjab)

2. Shri Yashpal Bali s/o Hari Ram Bali r/o
H. No. 4001, Sector 22 D , Chandigarh (PA to
Chief Minister)

3. Shri Kultar Singh, s/o Shakti Chand,r/o

7

Village Jagroop Distt. Kangra (HP), (R-
1,NSG) .

4. Shri Laxman Das, s/o Ram Lai, No. 36/202,
PAP r/o Mohalla Khokhaonwala, Badi
Market, near Arya Samaj , Sanaur Distt.
Patiala .

5. Shri Jagdish Singh Kutana, ASI/PP s/o Teja
Singh, R/o Village Kutana Sahib, Distt.
Ludhiana .

6. Swaran Singh, s/o Hazura Singh r/o 3107,
Sector 40-D Chandigarh (PA to Chief
Minister)

7. Shri Rajinder Parsad , s/o Lachman Lai r/o
Village Barbali, Distt. Jkhalwarh (Raj)
(SI- NSG)

8. Shri Balbir Singh s/o Jagna Ram r/o
Village Pipli Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj)
(RI-NSG) .

9. Dr. Anil Kumar Duggal, S/o K.K.Duggal, r/o
H. No. 3313, Sector 32 D Chandigarh.

10. Shri Tota Ram Sharma, s/o Chetram Shafrma
r/o 210-A, Chandigarh Village Chenari, PO
Alra, Simla (Peon in the Secretariat) .

11. Shri Ajaib Singh , HC No. 1/147, HAP s/o
Gurmej Singh V& PO Sarawana, Distt
Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

12. Shri Jagdish Singh s/o Dayal Singh r/o
Village Bhallan, PS Chamkaur Sahib,
Ropar (Driver of Chief Minister)

13. Shri Mukhtiar Singh , ASI Punjab Police
s/o Late Bhag Singh r/o Village Mahraj ,
PS Phool Distt.

14. Chamkaur Singh s/o Jagdev Singh r/o
Village Gajjan Majra, Distt. Sangrur.

8

(ASI Punjab Police)

15. Ranjodh Singh Mann S/o Nihal Singh, r/o
Village Majri, P.S. Payal, Distt Ludhiana.

16. Dhanwant Singh s/o Inderjit Singh, Village
Pandon, Distt. Ropar.

17. Baldev Singh s/o Harnek Singh r/o
H. No. 1223, Gali No. 12, Gurunanak Nagar,
Patiala assassin was also killed in the
blast .

9. Similarly, it was also found that the

following persons sustained injuries in this
explosion : -

1. Manojit Pal Singh s/o Lachhmanpal .

2. Bakshish Singh s/o Sardar Singh Constable
No . 75/1027PAP R/O H. No. 564 Sector 6,
Chandigarh .

3. Kulwant Singh s/o Gurmail Singh.

4. Kesar Dumra s/o Telu Ram.

5. SI Amar Singh s/o Tiku Ram CRPF.

6. Virender Rana s/o Kewal Singh.

7. HC Manmohan Singh No. 80/75 PAP.

8. D.K.Tripathi SP CM Security.

9. Satinder Kumar, driver.

10. Mahabir Prasad.

11. Upkar Singh.

12. Constable Pala Ram No. 1/675 HAP.

9

13.

Driver Joginder Singh.

14 .

Constable Dhurba Das No. 941241661 B.Coy.

15.

Pushpinder Kumar S/0 Raj Kumar.

10 .

As

stated

earlier,

the

further

investigations

thereafter were held by Central

Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I) and as a result of
the investigations and the evidence collected by
the C.B.I, it was found that a conspiracy to
assassinate Sardar Beant Singh, was initially
hatched in Pakistan by Wadhawa Singh and Mehal
Singh of Babbar Khalsa International and the other
persons namely Manjinder Singh based in U.K.,
Harjit Singh based in U.S. A, Resham Singh based in
Germany along with the present accused persons and
Dilawar Singh assassin and all of them had played
active part in the enforcement and in the execution
of the aforesaid conspiracy leading to the killing
of Sardar Beant Singh.

11. As per the prosecution, the investigation

revealed that S. Beant Singh, who was the Chief
Minister of Punjab since February, 1992 was
assassinated pursuant to the deep rooted criminal
conspiracy, masterminded by Babbar Khalsa
International, a terrorist organization. The
organization was founded in the year 1978 by Fauja
Singh, then Head of Akhand Kirtani Jatha. One of
the Principal objectives of this organization is to

10

create a sovereign Sikh State called Khalistan out
of the territory of India. Wadhwa Singh is the
Chief of this terrorists organization since last
few years and Mehal Singh is one of his important
lieutenants. This terrorists organization plans to
achieve the aforesaid objective through violent
means against the lawfully established authority.
It has claimed responsibility for the targeted
killing of several important public functionaries
both of the govt of India and that of the Govt of
Punjab, in last few years for achieving their
objective. Babbar Khalsa International has
categorically claimed the responsibility for the
assassination of S.Beant Singh in various
communications sent to the news paper agencies.

12. According to the perception of this

terrorist organization, S.Beant Singh usurped the
power after 1992 elections in the State of Punjab
despite the boycott of these elections by several
political groups. This terrorists organization
holds S.Beant Singh responsible for the
indiscriminate atrocities against innocent Sikhs in
the Punjab and countryside as also for the illegal
arrests, tortures, during investigation and
elimination of the detenees in fake encounters.
Babbar Khalsa International has also claimed that
S.Beant Singh was enemy No . 1 of Sikh 'Qaum' and
deserved the death penalty. It has also threatened
that anyone working against the Sikh 'Qaum' would

11

meet the same fate as S.Beant Singh. It has also
threatened to cause assassination of top level
national leaders and functionaries of the State of
Punjab to pave way for the creation of 'Khalistan'.

13. Accused Wadhwa Singh son of Amar Singh,
R/o Village Sandhu Chattha, PS Sadar, Kapurthala,
Punjab and Mehal Singh S/o Jind Singh R/o Village
Dasuwal, P.S Valtoha Distt. Amritsar (Pb) are both
citizens of India. Both of them have a base in
Pakistan and are indulging in anti India activities
from Pakistan. They have also been clandestinely
visiting India to carry out the terrorists
activities in India and destablise the lawfully
established authority. Accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
s/o Sher Singh, is resident of Village, Hawara
Kalan, P.S Khamano, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.
He is a hard-core terrorist of Babbar Khalsa
International and has been assisting Wadhwa Singh
and Mehal Singh in the execution of their violent
activities and diabolical plans. He has been
visiting Pakistan clandestinely and inducting young
boys from India to Pakistan for training in arms,
ammunitions and explosives to carry out violent
activities in India.

14. Accused Balwant Singh s/o Malkiat Singh
R/o Village, Rajoana Kalan, PS Sudhar, Distt.,
Ludhiana, who was residing at that time in
H.N0.68-A, Rattan Nagar, Patiala, was a Constable

12

of Punjab Police since 01.10.1987. He remained
posted as a security guard to Sh.Bhushan Sirhindi,
a journalist of Patiala. Accused Gurmeet Singh S/o
Jaswinder Singh is R/o H. No. 1431, Gali No. 14, Guru
Nanak Nagar, Patiala. He was working as service
engineer in BPL Sanyo at Chandigarh and was sharing
a rented accommodation with his friend Satinder Pal
Singh alias Simpi r/o Patiala at H. No. 981, Phase 4,
Mohali, Distt. Ropar.

15. Accused, Lakhwinder Singh S/o Darshab
Singh, is originally R/o H. No. 156, Gali No. 9, Guru
Nanak Nagar , Patiala . He is a constable, No. 409, in
the Punjab Police since 7.6.1993. At the time of
his arrest in this case, he was working as a
constable driver in the Intelligence Branch of
Punjab Police and was sharing a rented
accommodation in Village Kansal Distt. Ropar with
Constable Gurbachan Singh.

16. Accused, Dilawar Singh S/o Harnek Singh
was resident of H. No. 1223, Gali No. 12 Guru Nanak
Nagar, Patiala. He worked as a Special Police
Officer in Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib from 9.6.1993 to
18.9.1994. Thereafter, he was dismissed.

17. Accused Gurmeet Singh, Dilawar Singh,
Lakhwinder Singh and Balwant Singh were good
friends. Accused Paramjeet Singh, Jagtar Singh Tara
(PO) , Jagroop Singh and Navjot Singh are active

13

members of Akhand Kirtani Jatha and used to meet
each other frequently in Samagams held at various
places in India preceding the assassination of
S.Beant Singh and were intimate to each other.

18. Accused Paramjeet Singh and Jagtar Singh
Tara were found to be involved in a criminal case
registered vide FIR No. 39/91 dated 23.6.1991 P.S
Ropar Distt. Ropar U/s 307, 148, 149 IPC r/w
25/54/59 of Arms Act and Section 3 of TADA, 1987
for which they were facing trial along with their
other associates.

19. Accused, Nasib Singh is resident of
Village Jhingra Kalan, PS Kurali in Ropar Distt.
His house was frequently visited by accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara since last about two years from the
date of occurrence to use it as his hide out and
for concealing arms and explosives in his house for
carrying out the plans of Babbar Khalsa
International. Accused Navjot Singh and Jagroop
Singh are neighbours in Mohali township. Accused
Gurmeet Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Dilawar Singh and
Balwant Singh had definite leaning towards Babbar
Khalsa International.

20. During the period November, 1994 to
August, 1995 accused persons namely Wadhwa Singh,
Mehal Singh, Paramjeet Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara,
Jagrup Singh, Balwant Singh, Dilawar Singh,

14

Shamsher Singh, Jagtar Singh Tara, Lakhwinder
Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Nasib Singh, Navjot Singh and
others unknown entered into a criminal conspiracy
at various places in India/Pakistan with the object
of committing the assassination of S.Beant Singh,
then Chief Minister of Punjab.

21. During investigations, it was found that

the following acts of commission and omission were
committed by the aforesaid accused persons in
pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy: -

(i) Accused Wadhwa Singh, Mehal Singh and
Jagtar Singh Hawara some time in
November, 1994 at Lahore, agreed to
assassinate S.Beant Singh, the Chief
Minister of Punjab, as he was an enemy of
Sikh Panth and had given free hand to the
Punjab Police to kill the Sikhs and, thus
was coming in the way of the creation of

'Khalistan'. Accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
assured Wadhwa Singh and Mehal Singh that
he would definitely organize the killing
of S.Beant Singh for which arms and
explosives and monetary support was
reguired. Wadhwa Singh and Mehal Singh
agreed to provide the same.

(ii) Accused Wadhwa singh, Mehal Singh
and Jagtar Singh Hawara decided to

15

execute the killing of S.Beant Singh by
using some one to act as a 'human bomb' .

(iii) Accused Wadhwa Singh and Jagtar
Singh Hawara motivated persons, who might
be willing to offer themselves for being
used as, 'Human Bomb' for the
assassination of S.Beant Singh.

(iv) In the month of May/June, 1995,
accused Dilawar Singh hired a one room
accommodation at a secluded place in
Village Ratoli, Tehsil Rajgarh, Distt.
Sirmour, HP from one Joginder Singh s/o
Santu Ram. Accused Dilawar Singh Balwant
Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and other used to
meet there.

(v) Accused Jagtar Singh Hawara contacted
Shamsher Singh s/o Surjit Singh R/o
Village Ukasi Jattan, Distt Patiala, some
time in June, 1995 and joined him in the
conspiracy .

(vi) In July, 1995 accused Paramjeet
Singh introduced Jagtar Singh Hawara to
Jagtar Singh Tara in New Delhi, who was
working as a driver of Mohan Raj Shekher
R/o B-4/III, Safdarjung Enclave, New
Delhi and told him that accused Jagtar

16

Singh Hawara is a member of Babbar Khalsa
International and had returned from
Pakistan. Paramjeet Singh requested
Jagtar Singh Tara to help Jagtar Singh
Hawara in the 'task' for which Jagtar
Singh Tara agreed.

(vii) Later on, in the same month i.e
July, 1995 Paramjeet Singh, Navjot Singh
and Jagtar Singh Hawara met Jagrup Singh
at his house in Mohali, Paramjeet Singh
told them that S.Beant Singh then CM
Punjab and KPS Gill DGP Punjab were to be
killed, as they were responsible for the
killing of several jathedars in false
encounters. Jagtar Singh Hawara assured
the availability of arms and explosives
for this purpose and all the aforesaid
agreed to the said plan.

(viii) Around 10th August, 1995 Jagtar
Singh Hawara and Shamsher Singh engaged
Truck No. PB12-A-7947 of Sapinder Singh
alias Pappu (Shamsher 's cousin) from
Village Lalroo and in the said Truck they
went to a place near Ajnala in Amritsar
Distt. close to Indo-Pak border and from
there brought two bags full of
explosives. The said bags were brought in
the said truck to village Ukasi. Shamsher

17

Singh & Jagtar Singh Hawara concealed
these bags in the house of Shamsher Singh
in village Ukasi Jattan, Distt. Patiala.

(ix) Accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, brought
a big sack on a Scooter from the house of
Shamsher Singh in village Ukasi Jattan to
the house of accused Nasib Singh in
village Jhingran Kalan, P.S.Kurali,
Distt. Ropar. The said big sack contained
two ' kattas ' containing explosives and
remote control devices etc. Accused Nasib
Singh at the behest of Jagtar Singh
Hawara concealed the said explosives etc
in his house.

(x) Jagtar Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh
Tara purchased a steel grey colour
Ambassador Car No.DBA-9598 on 20.8.1995
for Rs.32,000/- from Smt . Reva Dutta, w/o
Shri S.K. Dutta, r/o Paschim Vihar, New
Delhi, to be used in the commission of
the crime. Jagtar Singh Tara had falsely
signed the delivery note of the said car
as Basant Singh. Jagtar Singh Tara
brought car no.DBA-9598 to the house
No.B-50, Vishwakarma Park, Laxmi Nagar,
Shakarpur, Delhi of Paramjit Singh.
Paramjit Singh kept the said car at his
house from 20th August to the morning of

18

24th August, 1995.

(xi) On 23.8.1995, Jagtar Singh Hawara
telephonically sent a coded message to
Jagtar Singh Tara at the residence of
Shri Mohan Raj Shekhar, his employer, to
reach Punjabi University, Patiala on the
next day with the said car.

(xii) On 24.8.1995, Jagtar Singh Tara
along with Paramjeet Singh left Delhi by
Car No. DBA-9598 and reached Punjabi
University, Patiala, where accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant Singh met
them. They decided that the next meeting
would be held in Gurdwara Dukh Nivaran at
7.00 a.m next day i.e 25.8.1995.

(xiii) On 25.8.1995, Paramjeet Singh and
Jagtar Singh Tara reached Gurudwara Dukh
Nivaran, Patiala, in Car No. DBA-9598,
where Jagtar Singh Hawara, Balwant Singh
and Dilawar Singh were already present.
Thereafter Jagtar Singh Hawara, Paramjeet
Singh, Balwant Singh, Jagtar Singh Tara
and Dilawar Singh left Patiala in Car No.
DBA-9598 and reached Village Jhingra
Kalan, P.S. Kurali, Distt. Ropar. They
collected two bags containing remote
control devices, electric wires and

19

explosives (RDX) etc from the house of
Nasib Singh, where they were earlier kept
by Jagtar Singh Hawara.

(xiv) Thereafter , on the same day i.e
25.8.1995, all of them reached H. No. 981,
Phase 4, Mohali of accused Gurmeet Singh,
where Jagtar Singh Hawara, kept some of
the explosive materials out of the
aforesaid two bags .

(xv) Then, all of them i.e accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara, Paramjit Singh, Balwant
Singh, Jagtar Singh Tara & Dilawar Singh
went to H. No. 243, Phase 7, Mohali of
Jagrup Singh, where Jagtar Singh Hawara
and Paramjeet Singh, kept the remote
control devices and the remaining
explosive materials.

(xvi) On 26.8.1995, Jagtar Singh Hawara
asked Paramjeet Singh to contact Dilawar
Singh, (assassin), and get the car No.
DBA-9598 painted 'off white' to give it a
look of an official car. Gurmeet Singh,
Lakhwinder Singh and Dilawar Singh
(assassin) and one other, took the car
No. DBA-9598, to the shop No. 24, Sector
7, Chandigarh of Shri Surendra Sharma and
delivered it for painting it 'off white'.

20

Lakhwinder Singh paid advance of
Rs.1500/- and they insisted that the car
should be ready by 29.8.1995 or latest by
30.8.1995.

(xvii) On 27th or 28thAugust, 1995, accused
Lakhwinder Singh got the waist of a khaki
colour pant loosened by Anil Kumar,
tailor, for use by Dilawar Singh.

(xviii) On 28.8.1995 Jagtar Singh Hawara
and Balwant Singh, who was in Police
uniform, brought one stengun, one
pistol, some magazines and cartridges and
many sets of Punjab Police uniforms
contained in a big black colour bag, in a
blue Maruti van and kept the same in the
house of Jagrup Singh.

(xix) On 28.8.1995, in the evening,
accused Dilawar Singh, Jagtar Singh
Hawara, Gurmeet Singh, Balwant Singh and
Lakhwinder Singh met in the room of
Gurmeet Singh located at house No. 981,
Phase IV, Mohali, which Gurmeet was
sharing with his friend Satinder Pal
Singh @ Simpi and remained there
throughout the night.

(xx) During the night of 28.8.1995

21

Gurmeet Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara,
Balwant Singh, Dilawar Singh and
Lakhwinder Singh, while at the aforesaid
room of Gurmeet Singh, mixed up RDX with
other materials on newspaper for the
purpose of making a belt bomb and made a
belt-bomb .

(xxi) On 29.8.1995, accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara, Jagtar Singh Tara, Jagrup Singh
and Paramjit Singh concealed the remote
control devices, explosives and wires etc
in the cavity of the harmonium brought by
Jagrup Singh. The aforesaid materials had
been brought by the aforesaid accused
persons to the house of Jagrup Singh on
25.8.1995. The said harmonium was kept in
the house of Jagrup Singh. Further, the
aforesaid accused concealed the remaining
firearms and explosives in two tubes and
a plastic cover. Thereafter Navjot Singh
took the above material to his house at
H. No. 889, Phase 3-B-2 along with Jagtar
Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh Tara and
concealed it there.

(xxii) In the evening of 29.8.1995
accused Dilawar and Balwant Singh went to
the shop of Surinder Sharma on the
scooter of Lakhwinder Singh and they

22

asked for the Car. But the car was not
ready at that time. Surinder Sharma told
them that the car would be delivered on
the next day i.e 30.8.1995.

(xxiii) In the forenoon of 30.8.1995n
accused Dilawar Singh and Balwant Singh
again went to the shop of Surender Sharma
on Scooter No. PCP 2085 belonging to
accused Lakhwinder Singh for taking
delivery of the car DBA-9598, Since the
car was not yet ready, both of them
waited there. Later, in the afternoon
when the painting work was about to be
complete, Balwant Singh left on the
scooter and came back to the shop after
sometime with Dalbir Singh @ Maula after
collecting the Khaki pant from Lakhwinder
Singh. The pant was taken out of the
dickey of the scooter and handed over to
Dilawar Singh. The Scooter was given to
Maula. Dilawar Singh and Balwant Singh
took delivery of the car and made the
balance payment of Rs.1500/-.

(xxiv) After taking delivery of the car
on 30.81.995 Jagtar Singh Tara, Dilawar
Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant
Singh left for the Punjab & Haryana Civil
Secretariat, Chandigarh, by the car No.

23

DBA-9598, at about 4/4.30 p.m, Jagtar
Singh Tara was driving the Car. Dilawar
Singh was wearing police uniform. Accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara got down from car on
the way. The remaining three accused
reached the Secretariat and found that
S.Beant Singh had already left the
Secretariat. They returned back to Mohali
and while coming back, accused Dilawar
unstrapped the belt bomb from his waist.

(xxv) On the night of 30.8.1995, Dilawar
Singh and Balwant Singh took the car No.
DBA-9598 to the house No. 3031/1, Sector
45, Chandigarh and stayed there for the
night with Chamkaur Singh brother of
Dilawar Singh.

(xxvi) Before leaving the house in the
morning of 31.8.1995, Dilawar Singh
cautioned his brother Chamkaur Singh to
leave Chandigarh immediately as he was
going to do something big for which
police would torture and kill him.

(xxvii) In the morning of
31 . 8 . 1995, accused Dilawar Singh and
Balwant Singh left the house of Chamkaur
Singh in Car No. DBA-9598 and while they
were leaving the house, Lakhwinder Singh

24

and Gurmeet Singh also joined them.

(xxviii) Thereafter, Jagtar Singh Tara
and Balwant Singh went to the Secretariat
on a Scooter. Lakhwinder Singh met them
there and told them that S.Beant Singh
had not yet reached the Secretariat.
After that Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh
Tara went to the bungalow of S.Beant
Singh to ascertain his whereabouts and
learnt that the Chief Minister was
present in his bungalow.

(xxix) At about 12 noon, Jagtar Singh
Tara and Balwant Singh again went to the
Secretariat from where they went to
Village Kansal to enquire about
Lakhwinder Singh. They could not meet
Lakhwinder Singh there. Then both of them
again came back to the Secretariat.
After some time Lakhwinder Singh also
joined Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh
Tara at the Secretariat premises. Jagtar
Singh Tara and Balwant Singh stayed in
the Secretariat premises area and waited
for the arrival of S.Beant Singh.

(xxx) At about 1.30 p.m s.Beant Singh,
Chief Minister Punjab, reached the
Secretariat, Jagtar Singh Tara and

25

Balwant Singh immediately left the
Secretariat on the Scooter for House
No. 981, Phase-4, Mohali of Gurmeet Singh.
On way to the house of Gurmeet Singh,
they collected Car No. DBA-9598 from
their hideout and one of them drove the
said car to the aforesaid house of
Gurmeet Singh. After reaching the house
of Gurmeet Singh, Jagtar Singh Tara and
Balwant Singh informed Dilawar Singh
(assassin) and Gurmeet Singh that S.Beant
Singh had reached Secretariat. Balwant
Singh asked Dilawar Singh to get ready
for the task. Dilawar Singh strapped the
bomb-belt around his waist. Gurmeet Singh
checked up the electric connections of
the belt-bomb to ensure that they were in
working order. Dilawar Singh (assassin)
dressed up in police uniform concealing
the belt-bomb underneath it.

(xxxi) Jagtar Singh Tara and Dilawar
Singh left the house of Gurmeet Singh for
the Secretariat in Car No. DBA-9598 for
the 'task' Accused Balwant Singh followed
them on his Scooter No . PB-11-1 955 . Jagtar
Singh Tara was driving the car and
Dilawar Singh had occupied the front
seat. They reached the Secretariat at
about 3.00 P.M and parked the car at a

26

short distance from the VIP gate. Balwant
Singh also joined accused Dilawar Singh
and Jagtar Singh Tara in the Car. After
some time, Jagtar Singh Tara left the
Secretariat leaving behind Dilawar Singh
and Balwant Singh in the Car.

(xxxii) Accused Dilawar Singh and Balwant
Singh were in the car awaiting the
departure of S.Beant Singh from Punjab
Secretariat. They had waited as per the
plan for assassinating the Chief
Minister, Punjab at the VIP gate of the
Secretariat .

(xxxiii) Accused Lakhwinder Singh was
also present in the close vicinity of
Punjab and Haryana Civil Secretariat
around 5.00p.m on 31.8.1995.

(xxxiv) At about 5.10 p.m, S.Beant Singh
came down to the VIP gate surrounded by
his security personnel and others and
when he got into car No. PB-08-3469,
accused Dilawar Singh was seen
approaching the Chief Minister's car and
immediately there was a huge explosion in
which the CM's Car and some other cars in
the motorcade caught fire and entire are
was engulfed in a dark of dense smoke.

27

S.Beant Singh
named above
explosion and
were injured.

and seventeen
died as
15 person

other persons
a result of
s named above

22. Similarly the investigation further

revealed that during the investigations two
dismembered legs and one damaged head of
unidentified person was examined by Dr.Inderjit
Diwan of P.G.I, who opined that both the legs
belong to the same individual and they have been
severed just above the knees by a blast, which has
created a big lacerated wound at the upper ends of
both the legs because of an explosive device and he
also advised a D.N. A test to confirm the identity
of the persons. Similarly, the swabs taken from the
dismembered legs and heads were sent to CFSL,
Chandigarh and they have confirmed the presence of
RDX on the above dismembered parts of the
unidentified persons. During the investigations,
Harnek Singh, father of the assassin Dilawar Singh,
identified the legs and head in question being of
his son Dilawar Singh. Dr. Lalji Singh of Central
for Cellular and Molecular Biology Hyderabad, took
the blood samples of Harnek Singh, Smt . Harjit Kaur
and Chamkaur Singh, father, mother and brother
respectively of Dilawar Singh and also the samples
from the dismembered legs and head found at the
place of occurrence and after conducting the DNA
profile and examination concluded that both the

28

legs and head belongs to the one and the same
individual and that the said individual is
biological off-spring of Smt.Surjit Kaur and Shri
Harnek Singh and since Shri Dilawar Singh is the
only missing son of Smt.Harjit Kaur and Shri Harjit
Singh, the remnant is that of assassin Dilawar
Singh. In this way the identity of assassin has
been firmly established as being Dilawar Singh s/o
Harnek Singh, resident of Patiala.

23. Similarly, as per the spot inspection by
the experts and specially by Lt.Col. Manik
Sabharwal, an expert of Explosive cases, the
explosion took place at a distance of about 1 to 2
meters from the left rear door of the car No. PB-
08-3469 in which Shri Beant Singh, then CM was
sitting and that the seat of the explosion was
above the ground level and it has been caused by a
explosive device strapped on the torso of a suicide
bomber or a human bomb and that is why after the
explosion the swearing of his head and legs and
total extermination of the torso has taken place.

24. The sequence of events accusing the
accused persons being part and parcel of the
conspiracy leading to the murder of Beant Singh,
after the commission of the crime till their arrest
and the act and conduct of the accused persons
after the commission of the crime till their arrest
reveals that on 10.9.1995 , Scooter No. PB-11-1955

29

of Balwant Singh was recovered from Pritam Cycle
Stand, Patiala. From the dicky of the Scooter, an
unused belt made of cloth meant for making the
belt-bomb was also recovered. Accused, Balwant
Singh has been absconding ever since the
assassination of Sardar Beant Singh.

25. Accused Lakhwinder Singh met Dalbir Singh
@ Maula on 2.9.1995 in Village Kansal and told him
that the planning of the bomb blast was made by
him, Balwant Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Jagtar Singh
Hawara, wherein Dilawar Singh attained martyrdom.
Lakhwinder Singh had also confided in Dalbir @
Maula that Ambassador Car No. DBA-9598, regarding
which the news had appeared in the newspaper, was
the same which was got painted from Shri Surender
Sharma, painter and delivered to Dilawar Singh and
Balwant Singh.

26. Accused Jagtar Singh Tara reached Delhi
and told Jaswinder Singh and Baldev Singh that the
car used in S. Beant Singh assassination, was
purchased by him and his friend from Paschim Vihar,
Delhi. He also told them that he and his friend
Paramjit Singh had reached Chandigarh via Punjab on
25.8.1995. He further confided in them that he had
driven accused Dilawar Singh in the ambassador car
on 31.8.1995 to the Punjab & Haryana Secretariat,
when Dilawar Singh was in police uniform and
eguipped with a belt bomb. He also told his

30

brothers that Dilawar Singh had killed S.Beant
Singh by causing the bomb explosion.

27. Accused Jagtar Singh Tara has made a
confessional statement before Special Judicial
Magistrate, Punjab, Patiala on 22.9.1995 in which
he has admitted his own involvement in the
assassination and also the involvement of other
accused, namely Jagtar Singh Hawara, Paramjit Singh,
Balwant Singh, Dilawar Singh, Gurmeet Singh,
Lakhwinder Singh, Navjot Singh and Jagrup Singh. He
has given vivid details of various overt acts done
by the aforesaid accused persons pursuant to the
criminal conspiracy to kill S.Beant Singh,
conseguent to which Dilawar Singh acted as human
bomb on 31.8.1995.

28. During the course of investigation,
accused Lakhwinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh were
arrested at Chandigarh on 5.9.1995. Accused Jagtar
Singh Tara was arrested in Delhi on 13.9.1995. A
cyanide capsule was also recovered from his
possession at the time of arrest. Accused Navjot
Singh was arrested on 18.9.1995 at Village Jhingra
Kalan. The Scooter No. PCP-2085 of Lakhwinder
Singh, which he was driving at the time of his
arrest, was also seized.

29. Accused Gurmeet Singh was taken on Police
custody remand from 6.9.1995 to 19.9.1995. While in

31

custody, he made a disclosure statement on 8.9.1995
u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to the effect
that S.Beant Singh was killed by Dilawar Singh by
using a belt-bomb, which was prepared in his room.
On the pointing out of Gurmeet Singh, newspaper
pieces on which the RDX etc was mixed, polythene
bag, cardboard strip and cardboard boxes containing
the traces of RDX and the particles of the
explosive materials found on the floor of his room
were taken into possession.

30. Accused Jagtar Singh Tara made a
disclosure statement on 18.9.1995 to the effect
that he along with Jagtar Singh Hawara, Dilawar
Singh, Balwant Singh and Paramjit Singh had gone to
village Jhingran Kalan on 25.8.1995 from where
Jagtar Singh Hawara had collected explosives and
the remaining explosives were still lying in the
said house. He promised to point out that house in
the village Jhingra Kalan, where explosives are
still concealed. Consequently, Jagtar Singh Tara
was taken to that village, who pointed out the
house of Nasib Singh.

31. Nasib Singh was arrested on 18.9.1995 and
while in police custody he made a disclosure
statement that the explosives, which Jagtar Singh
Hawara had concealed in his house and out of which
some explosives, he (Hawara) had taken away on
25.8.1995, was lying concealed in a room underneath

32

a heap of straw which he could point out and get
recovered. On the pointing of Nasib Singh, RDX
weighing about 13.700 kgs was recovered on
18.9.1995 from Nasib Singh's house.

32. During investigation, Scooter No. DL-5SF-
0318 in the name of Jagtar Singh Tara s/o Sadhu
Singh was seized from Kamaljit Singh @ Kala on
22.10.1995. The aforesaid Scooter had been financed
by accused Paramjit Singh.

33. Accused Lakhwinder Singh was arrested on
5.9.1995, while he was traveling on a scooter NO.
PCP 2085, in Chandigarh. On his personal search
along with other articles, a torn receipt memo
No. 13414 was recovered. On the back of it was
written "I want death only, first CM Punjab you
know, then PM" . The writing is in the hand of
accused Lakhwinder Singh. The house search of
accused Lakhwinder Singh at Village Kansal also
revealed bank deposits of Rs.3.85 lacs with Bank of
Punjab Ltd., Chandigarh.

34. House search of accused Navjot Singh was
conducted on 17.9.1995 during which his personal
diary and some loose sheets were recovered. Accused
Navjot Singh has recorded in his own hand "water
will not flow in SYL Canal. Only blood of Beant
Singh (Singh struck off) and KPS along with their
corrupt colleagues will flow in SYL canal along

33

with blood of Bhajan Lai" Apart from the above, a
manuscript in the hand writing of Navjot Singh was
also recovered from his house which, inter alia,
states that "The People of India and the Govt, of
India i.e the Govt, of thieves and black marketeers
should not rejoice that peace has come to Punjab
through their puppet Govt. i.e Beant Singh the
'smuggler' who along with killer DGP i.e Gill is
killing the Sikh youths in fake encounters and
looting the people of Punjab through black cats.
These same very cats were mixed in militant ranks
to defame the Sikh struggle and to eliminate
Jathedars which they did successfully but this will
not happed now" .

35. Accused Jagtar Singh Tara had parked
Ambassador Car No. DBA-9598 near the VIP gate of
the Secretariat on 31.8.1995. During the search of
the Car, a couplet in Punjabi in the hand writing
of Balwant Singh was recovered, which when
translated into English says that "my comrades died
n the hope that I share their griefs/but if I keep
quite and do not say anything then their Souls
would not rest in peace and would constantly haunt
me. "

36. From the aforesaid car, Chance Finger
prints were lifted by the experts of CFSL, New
Delhi. Vide their Report No. CFSL-95/A/847-44-1
dated 30.10.1995, the CFSL has opined that a

34

chance print developed and photographed from the
rear view mirror of the car is of accused
Lakhwinder Singh.

37. Search was also conducted in the house of
Balwant Singh in Patiala, on 5.9.1995 in which a
diary and Babbar Khalsa International letter heads
were recovered. In the last page, there is a pen
sketch which purports to be of the Punjab & Haryana
Secretariat along with the sketch of a commando
looking person.

38. House No. 1223, Gali No. 12, Gurunanak
Nagar, Patiala of Dilawar Singh, was searched on
5.9.1995 in which a small booklet on Shaheed Bhagat
Singh was recovered. In one side of the last title
page, a pen sketch is drawn which purports to be a
belt-bomb with detonator device.

39. Similarly, some more facts, which
fortifies the commission of the offence by the
accused persons found during the investigations,
were that after the blast on 31.8.1995, office of
the UNI, New Delhi, received a fax message on the
same night issued and signed by accused Wadhwa
Singh and Mehal Singh on the letter head of Babbar
Khalsa International. The fax message conveyed that
Babbar Khalsa International owned the
responsibility for killing S.Beant Singh. Another
fax message was received in the same Office on

35

6.9.1995 under the signatures and name of accused
Mehal Singh, also bearing the name of accused
Wadhwa Singh. It is also on a similar letter head
of Babbar Khalsa International and spells out the
jurisdiction and rationale of Babbar Khalsa
International behind the killing of S.Beant Singh.

40. On 2.9.1995, a fax message was received in
the office of Hind Samachar Group, Jalandhar on a
similar letter head of Babbar Khalsa International
signed by Wadhwa Singh, wherein he has claimed the
responsibility for the killing S.Beant Singh and
given a call to the people of Punjab to fight
against the Govt. of India for the cause of
' Khalistan ' .

41. Another fax message was received in the
office of Hind Samachar Group, Jallandhar on
7.9.1995 on the letter head of Babbar Khalsa
International signed by Wadhwa Singh, wherein it is
reiterated that the organisation is behind the
killing of S.Beant Singh. The signatures on the
aforesaid fax message have been proved to be of
Wadhwa Singh and Mehal Singh by the Independent
witnesses .

42. All the incriminating articles collected
from the scene of crime including cloth pieces
taken into possession from the car of Sardar Beant
Singh, some partly burnt pieces of clothes lying
here and there debris, metallic nails, wooden

36

pieces, human jaw, dori, rubber pipe, keys, space,
watch etc. were sent to CFSL Chandigarh for
technical examination and after the various
technical tests RDX was detected on various cloth
pieces, fleshy material, debris, burnt pieces of
sponge, human jaw, metallic frame, clothes taken
from the rear seat of the car of Sardar Beant
Singh, etc. Similarly traces of another explosive
known as PETN were also detected on the swabs taken
from the heads and legs of the assassin.

43. The articles purporting to contain traces
of RDX recovered from the house of Gurmeet Singh on
8.9.1995 were also sent to CFSL, Chandigarh for
examination. CFSL, Chandigarh, vide its report
No. 989/95 dated 27.9.1995 opined that RDX was
detected on the polythene bag, brown coloured
cardboard boxes, cardboard strips, pieces of
newspaper and particles purported to have been
lifted from the floor of the room of Gurmeet Singh.

44. On completion of investigation, accused
Wadhawa Singh, Mehal Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara,
Paramjit Singh, Balwant Singh, Jagroop Singh and
Shamsher Singh have been found absconding since the
aforesaid occurrence and as such after obtaining
the necessary sanction as required u/s 188 of the
Cr.P.C against absconding accused Wadhawa Singh,
Mehal Singh and sanction for prosecution under the
provisions of Explosives Act, a charge sheet no . 6

37

of 1995 was filed against the accused Gurmeet Singh
@ Mita, Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, Jagtar Singh @
Tara (now P.O) Navjot Singh and Nasib Singh. Vide
order dated 11.12.1995 Shri Shekhar Dhawan then
Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the charge
sheet to the court of Sessions.

45. During the pendency of the proceedings
before the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh it was found
that the accused Shamsher Singh has been arrested
and accordingly a supplementary challan no.6-A of
1995 was filed against accused Shamsher Singh
inter-alia alleging that being part and parcel of
the conspiracy, the accused Shamsher Singh, at the
behest of accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, arranged
Truck No. PB-12-A-7947 belonging to his cousin
Sapinder Singh. Thereafter , both of them on or about
10.8.1995 used that Truck and brought two bags of
RDX from a place near Village Ajnala, Distt
Amritsar near the Indo Pak border, in pursuance of
their conspiracy to execute their target and the
same was kept concealed in the house of accused
Shamsher Singh in Village Ukasi Jattan, Distt
Patiala .

46. Later on accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
removed some part of the RDX from the consignment
possessed by accused Shamsher Singh on a Scooter on
or about 11.8.1995 for using in the commission of
murder of Sardar Beant Singh. Accordingly Shamsher

38

Singh was arrested in this case on 11.12.1995 and
was taken to Delhi for investigation.

47. During the investigations accused Shamsher
Singh desired to make a confession regarding his
guilt and he was accordingly produced in the court
of Shri D . K . Sharma, then Metropolitan Magistrate,
New Delhi on 16.12.1995, who after satisfying
himself, recorded the confessional statement of
accused Shamsher Singh in which he has accepted his
involvement as well as the involvement of other
accused persons and also confirmed use and
providing of the Truck of Sapinder Singh for
transporting RDX etc from a place near Ajnala along
with accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and also confirmed
that RDX was stored and kept in his house in
Village Ukasi Jattan, P.S. Rajpura Sadar.

48. On completion of necessary investigations
and after obtaining the necessary sanction for
prosecution, a charge sheet N0.6-A of 1995 was
filed in the court of C.J.M Chandigarh, and vide
order dated 19.12.1995 the same was committed to
the court of Sessions.

49. During the pendency of the proceedings
before the Sessions Court Chandigarh absconding
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant Singh were
also arrested by the Punjab Police on 22.12.1995.
Later accused Balwant Singh was taken into custody

39

by Haryana Police in its case vide FIR No. 88/95,
P.S.Naggal, Distt Ambala and he was produced before
the court on 14.1.1996 and at that time he was
arrested by the CBI in this case and was remanded
to Police custody till 27.1.1996. Similarly,
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara was arrested by the
Haryana Police in the aforesaid case and was
produced before the Magistrate at Ambala on
20.1.1996 from where he was arrested by the CBI in
this case and then both of them were taken to Delhi
for investigations.

50. During investigations, accused Balwant
Singh volunteered to make confession and he was
accordingly produced before ACMM Patiala House
courts, New Delhi on 22.1.1996 and his confession
was recorded by Shri V . K . Maheshwari , then
Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala house Court, New
Delhi on 23.1.1996. In his confessional statement
accused Balwant Singh disclosed all the details as
to how he and his other co-accused person hatched a
conspiracy and killed Sardar Beant Singh and others
on 31.8.1995, through a bomb blast by a human bomb
Dilawar Singh.

51. Similarly, accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
also suffered a disclosure statement on 23.1.1996
before the Investigating Officer and disclosed that
he had prepared the sketch map of the Civil
Secretariat of Punjab & Haryana and that of the

40

belt, used by assassin Dilawar Singh and has kept
concealed these documents in the house of Kuldip
Singh @ Ram Singh, Resident of H.No.A-341, Nand
Gram Gaziabad, where he stayed before the
assassination of Sardar Beant Singh and accordingly
after breaking open the lock of above house as per
the identity disclosed by accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara, the sketch map of Civil Secretariat and of
the belt were recovered from the aforesaid
premises. Similarly, accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
further disclosed that while staying in the house
of Kuldip Singh @ Ram Singh, he frequently made
telephonic calls to Resham Singh of Babbar Khalsa
International at Germany regarding the
assassination of Sardar Beant Singh and he
accordingly identified and pointed out the STD/ISD
PCO Booths at Gaziabad belonging to Rajesh Kumar
Malhotra & Garg Communications.

52 . Accordingly after investigating the matter

the C.B.I found that accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
and Balwant Singh in pursuance of their criminal
conspiracy committed the following acts of
omissions and commissions in addition to the
circumstances mentioned above in para number 21:-

(i) In June, 1995 accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara came to India from Pakistan
and stayed with Kuldeep Singh @ Ram
Singh in H.No.341-A, Nandgram,

41

colony, Ghaziabad (UP) . While
staying there he visited Patiala
several times and met accused
Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh at
accused Balwant Singh's house.

(ii) On 23.6.1995 Manjinder Singh @
Babaji booked Room No. 203 in Surya
Guest House, Darya Ganj , Delhi,
where he, accused Balwant Singh and
Jagtar Singh Hawara assembled and
discussed the security arrangement
of S.Beant Singh and also the
modalities to assassinate S.beant
Singh .

(iii) In the first week of July, 1995
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara held a
meeting with accused Balwant Singh
at latter's residence i.e H.N0.68/A
Rattan Nagar, Patiala and discussed
the security arrangements for
S.Beant Singh. They finalised the
plan to kill s.Beant Singh through a
'human bomb' in the Punjab & Haryana
Civil Secretariat for which they
decided to get stitched a cloth belt
to be stuffed with explosives etc
which was to be strapped by the
assassin. They also decided to

42

procure an Ambassador Car to
facilitate the entry of the assassin
into the Sectt. Jagtar Singh Hawara
took up the responsibility of
arranging the explosives etc. and
car. Few more uniforms were also got
stitched as suggested by Jagtar
Singh Hawara.

(iv) As mentioned above, Jaaagtar Singh
Hawara, after precuring RDX etc with
the help of accused Shamsher Singh,
and storing them in Nasib Singh's
house at Jhingra kalan and
purchasing the car, DBA-9598 and
leaving it with Paramjit Singh and
Jagtar Singh Tara in Delhi, went to
Patiala again on 21st August, 1995
and met Balwant Singh. On 22.8.1995
Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant
Singh brought some explosive
material to Balwant Singh's house in
Patiala .

(v) Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant
Singh got stitched two cloth belts
for the purpose of making a belt
bomb, from Stitch Co-Jeans, A/C
Market, Patiala. Delivery of one
belt was taken on 25.8.1995 evening

43

and that of the second one on
27.8.1995 evening. One of these
belts was used by assassin Dilawar
Singh on 31.8.1995 for assassinating
S.Beant Singh. The second one was
recovered during investigation from
the dicky of Balwant Singh's Scooter
No . PB-11-1955 which he had left in
the Scooter parking of Patiala Bus
Stand on the evening of 31.8.1995
after assassination of S.Beant
Singh. Accused Balwant Singh while
being in police custody made a
disclosure statement regarding the
belt being stitched from Patiala and
consequent to the said disclosure
statement, he pointed out the shop
of M/s Stitch Co-Jeans, Air
Conditioned Market, Patiala, from
where the said belts were got
stitched. The accused Balwant Singh
also made a disclosure statement
that in the month of July, 1995 he
got various police uniforms stitched
for himself and Dilawar Singh and he
also pointed out the shop, Sidhu
Tailors, Tripuri Town, Patiala, from
where the said uniforms were got
stitched .

44

(vi) On 28.8.1995, Jagtar Singh Hawara
and Balwant Singh hired a Maruti Van
Taxi No. DAJ 1401 from Patiala and
took along Service Stengun of
Balwant Singh, two magazines of the
same gun, the belt with explosive
material and police uniforms etc in
the Van and went to Mohali where
they met Dilawar Singh and Jagtar
Singh @ Tara as preplanned.

(vii) On 28.8.1995 Balwant Singh,
Dilawar Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara,
Gurmeet Singh and Lakhwinder Singh
remade the belt bomb by adding some
more explosive material and RDX and
nuts/bolts into the cloth belt in
the house of accused Gurmeet Singh
at house NO. 981, Phase. IV, SAS
Nagar, Mohali during night hours. It
was agreed that accused Dilawar
Singh will wear the belt containing
the explosives etc and will act as
human bomb to kill Beant Singh. And
on 30-08-95, all of them made a
unsuccessful attempt to kill Beant
Singh and ultimately on 31-08-95
they hit their target as per the
details given in para 21.

45

(viii) Immediately after the aforesaid
incident, accused Balwant Singh
escaped to Patiala on Scooter No.
PB-11-1995 and left the same at
Pritam Cycle Stand, Patiala and met
his foster parents in village Mehraj
Patti before whom he made a
confession. After visiting village
Mehraj Patti & Ludhiana, Balwant
Singh absconded and reached Nagpur
on 2.9.1995 and met his friend
Tejinder Singh. There in presence of
Tejinder Singh, Gurpreet Singh,
Gurinder Singh and Amandeep Singh,
he confessed that he killed S.Beant
Singh on 31.8.1995 along with Jagtar
Singh Hawara, Jagtar Singh Tara,
Lakhwinder Singh, Gurmeet Singh and
Dilawar Singh and others. Accused
Balwant Singh stayed in Nagpur from
3.9.1995 to 6.9.1995 at Hotels Anand
Mahal and President in assumed/
fictitious name of Sandeep Sharma.
Later he stayed at Nanded and
Panipat .

(ix) Accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
absconded and in order to evade his
arrest stayed at H. No. A/341,
Nandgram, Ghaziabad (UP) .

46

(x) Accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar
Singh Hawara absconded after the
commission of offence and had been
evading arrest. Around 15.9.1995,
Balwant Singh joined Jagtar Singh
Hawara in Jaipur. He and Jagtar
Singh Hawara along with some other
persons stayed at different places
in Jaipur, Calcutta, Farrukhabad,
Agra, Ambala and Ludhiana till
22.12.1995 under fictitious names
concealing their identities.

(xi) Accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and
Balwant Singh maintained regular
telephonic contact with members of
their outfit i.e Babbar Khalsa
International for seeking
instructions and material & monetary
support from other countries viz,
Germany, USA, Norway etc.

(xii)The chance prints lifted from Car
No. DBA-9598 used in the commission
of the crime, were got compared with
the specimen finger prints of the
accused persons and one of the
chance prints has been found to be
that of accused Balwant Singh.

47

53. Accordingly after completion of

investigations and after obtaining the necessary
sanctions, a supplementary charge sheet no.6-B was
submitted against accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar
Singh Hawara, in the court of Area Magistrate and
vide order, dated 19.2.1996, Shri Shekhar Dhawan,
then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh
committed the case qua these accused persons to the
court of Sessions.

CHARGE SHEET

54. After commitment of all the three charge

sheets, then learned Sessions Judge heard arguments
on the question of charge and vide detailed order
dated, 30.4.1996, found that there are sufficient
grounds for presuming that accused Gurmeet Singh,
Lakhwinder Singh, Jagtar Singh Tara, Navjot Singh,
Nasib Singh, Shamsher Singh, Balwant Singh and
Jagtar Singh Hawara alongwith accused Mehal
Singhand Wadhawa Singh (based in Pakistan) , accused
Manjnder Singh (based in U.K), Harjit Singh (based
in U.S. A), accused Rasham Singh (based in Germany),
accused Paramjit Singh and accused Jagroop Singh
(since absconding) and Dilawar Singh (since dead)
have committed offences punishable under Section
120-B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and 4/5 of the Explosives Substances Act and

48

that they have also committed offences punishable
under Section 4 and 6 of the Explosive Substances
Act; Lakhwinder Singh and Balwant Singh accused
have committed an offence punishable under Section
114 read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
and all the above named accused have also committed
an offence punishable under Section 114 read with
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code; and accused
Gurmeet Singh, Jagtar Singh Tara, Navjot Singh,
Nasib Singh, Shamsher Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara
have committed an offence punishable under Section
109 read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
and an offence punishable under Section 109 read
with Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code; and
accused Nasib Singh and accused Gurmit Singh have
also committed an offence punishable under Section
5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

55. As per the above order, all the eight

accused persons, who were put on trial namely
Gurmeet Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Jagtar Singh alias
Tara, Navjot Singh, Nasib Singh, Shamsher Singh,
Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara were
accordingly charge sheeted. The contents of the
charge sheet were explained to each of the accused
persons in their own vernacular language to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

49

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

56. In order to prove its case, the

prosecution examined as many as 247 witnesses. A
brief resume of their testimony along with their
particulars and the role of these witnesses is as
follows :

PW-1, Dr.Jagjiv Sharma, who had

conducted the postmortem examination of
the dead body of deceased Chamkaur
Singh, Jagdish Singh, Tota Ram and
Dhanwant Singh, accordingly proved his
postmortem reports showing that death of
these persons took place because of the
injuries suffered in this blast.

PW-2 , Dr. J.R.Chauhan, who had

conducted the postmortem examination on
the dead body of Kultar Singh and Swaran
Singh, accordingly proved his postmortem
reports showing that death of these
persons took place because of the
injuries suffered in this blast.

PW-3, Dr.P.L Goyal, who had

conducted the postmortem examination on
the dead body of Sher Singh accordingly
proved his postmortem report showing that
death of the person took place because
of the injuries suffered in this blast.

50

PW-4, Dr . J.K.Katra, who had

conducted the postmortem examination on
the dead body of HC Ajaib Singh and
Rajinder Prashad, accordingly proved his
postmortem report showing that death of
the person took place because of the
injuries suffered in this blast.

PW-5, Dr. Deepak Bakshi, who had

conducted the postmortem examination on
the dead body of Balbir Singh,
accordingly, proved his postmortem
reports showing that death of the person
took place because of the injuries
suffered in this blast.

PW-6, Dr.Inderjit Diwan had

conducted the postmortem examination on
the dead body of deceased Beant Singh,
Dr. Anil Duggal as well as the postmortem
examination of the two legs and a head,
which was later on identified to be of
assassin Dilawar Singh. Accordingly, this
witness proved that on the reguest of the
police he conducted the postmortem
examination on the dead body of deceased
Beant Singh, for which the dead body was
identified by Shamsher Singh Dhillon,
then Excise Minister Punjab and Shri
Karam Singh Gill, then Industry Minister

51

Punjab, who was also brother in law of
deceased Sardar Beant Singh, and
accordingly he proved that after
conducting the postmortem examination as
per his report, Ex.PW6/5, he concluded
that the deceased Sardar Beant Singh had
died because of the injuries suffered in
the bomb blast caused by an explosive
device and it was an instant death.

He further proved that the
proline suture of the deceased was
identified by Professor M.M.Gupta of
P.G.I, who had operated the deceased for
paranumblical hernia a few months prior
to this incident and he had also sought
the help of PW-17, Dr.Amar Singh, BDS of
Payal, who had recognized the denture of
the deceased C.M as he had prepared the
same about three months prior to this
incident .

This witness has also proved
that he being a member of board of three
Doctors also conducted the postmortem
examination on the dead body of deceased
Anil Kumar Duggal, who also died in this
bomb blast when standing near to the
Chief Minister.

52

He further deposed that on
4.9.1995, two legs and a head were also
produced before him for postmortem
examination of the same and he examined
those limbs from 5.9.1995 to 8.9.1995 and
as per his report, Ex.PW6/43, he opined
that both the legs appeared to be that of
the same person and have been severed by
a mutilated injury just above the knee
joints and both the legs belongs to the
same individual having a height of 5" 10
inch and to decide whether the legs and
the head belongs to the same person he
recommended a DNA test.

He further deposed that on
5.9.1995, Dr.Lalji Singh of Hyderabad
came to his department and on the
suggestions of Dr. Lai Singh, he obtained
small pieces of scalp, small bunch of
hair, a piece of muscle, a piece of bone
from the head of the said unknown person
and also muscle pieces from right leg and
left leg and put them in small plastic
bottle and handed them over to Dr. Lai jit
Singh .

Similarly the blood samples of
Harnek Singh, Chamkaur Singh and the
mother of deceased Dilawar Singh were

53

also taken in his presence and same were
also handed over to Dr.Lalji for D.N. A
profile .

He also proved that after the
postmortem examination of dead body of
Baldev Singh then MLA from Pacca Kalan,
he found that he had also died because of
the injuries suffered in the bomb blast.

PW-7, Kanwar Kishan, Senior
Assistant has brought the record

regarding medico legal reports of the
injured which were brought to the
Hospital and proved the same accordingly.

PW-8, Dr.Utpal Kumar has proved
the injuries suffered by the injured
Dhanwant Singh, who died later on because
of the injuries suffered in the blast.

PW-9, Dr .M. Siriniwas has also
proved the treatment record of the
injured Baldev Singh and further deposed
that deceased Baldev Singh died later on
because of the injuries suffered in the
blast .

PW-10, Dr .R.K. Sharma, Surgeon in
the Deptt of Plastic Surgery, P.G.I had

54

accordingly proved the treatment given to
the deceased Dhanwant Singh in his
department .

PW-11, Dr.Om Parkash, who had

examined one of the injured Jagdish Singh
and Tota Ram, accordingly proved the
medico legal reports of both and deposed
that later on both of them died because
of the injuries suffered in the blast. In
addition to this he had also proved the
record of the injuries and treatment of
the injured Pala Ram and D . K . Tripathi .

PW-12, Dr.Manmohan Singh Gill

had brought the original files of all the
10 injured persons admitted in General
Hospital Sector 16 Chandigarh and proved
the copies of record.

PW-13, Man jit Singh, Pharmacist
had brought the OPD register of G.H
Sector 16 Chandigarh, from period
16.8.1995 to 10.10.1995 and proved the
same .

PW-14, Dr.Pankaj Arora,

Emergency Medical Officer, Govt Medical
College, Chandigarh, proved that on
31.8.1995 various persons with the

55

alleged history of having received
injuries in the bomb blast were brought
to the OPD and he accordingly examined
Amar Singh, Bakshish Singh, Manojit Pal,
Varinder Rana, Joginder Singh, Kesar
Singh, Manmohan Singh, Upkar Singh and
found various injuries on these persons
as mentioned in the medico legal reports
and all of them remained under treatment
in the Hospital .

PW-15, Dr.Sushil Gupta, Medical
Officer, General Hospital, Sector 16,
Chandigarh, proved that on 31.8.1995 he
examined injured Kulwant Singh, Satinder
Kumar and both of them have suffered
injuries because of the bomb blast.

PW-16, Dr. Sandeep Singh Sahini,

who had conducted the postmortem
examination on the dead body of Yash
Pal, Laxman Dass, Mukhtair Singh and
Ranjodh Singh accordingly proved that

these persons died because of the
injuries suffered in the bomb blast.

PW-17, Dr. Amar Singh, CMO,
Dental Surgeon, was the family Doctor of
deceased Beant Singh and he used to take
care of the dental problem of deceased

56

Chief Minister and he accordingly deposed
that on 01.09.1995 he came to Chandigarh
and then went to P.G.I and on the asking
of Dr.Bakshi he identified the denture of
deceased Chief Minister and he found the
same to be the same denture which he
prepared for the deceased Sardar Beant
Singh and he submitted his report
Ex.PW6/4/A in this regard.

PW-18, Dr.Ishwar Lohana has

treated one of the injured Pala Ram and
he accordingly proved the treatment given
by him.

PW-19, Dr.Rajinder Kumar was a

Doctor on duty when the injured and dead
persons were brought to the Hospital for
treatment and postmortem examination and
he accordingly proved those proceedings .

PW-20, Dr . J . L . Chaudhary is a

formal witness who after receiving the
information regarding blast deputed
various Doctors for treatment &
postmortem examination.

PW-21, Dr.A.S.Rathee, being
Senior Resident of the Deptt of Plastic
Surgery, P.G.I treated one of the

57

injured of bomb blast, D . K . Tripathy and
accordingly proved the record in this
regard .

PW-22, SI Hari Ram of Chandigarh
Police Control Room, who has proved the
various Traffic Net, Zebra Net, V.I.P
Security Net, P. S. Central Net, P.S. East
Net and P.S. South Net and has proved
Ex.PW22/l to Ex.PW22/5 with regard to the
entries in the log book and of different
nets. He has also proved the
certification to the effect that it
contains 380 pages from 17.8.1995 to
3.9.1995. The above documents were taken
into custody vide memo Ex.PW22/6 and he
also proved the signatures on the said
document .

PW-23, C.Kartar Singh, No. 2 715

has deposed that he was posted as
Constable in Police Control Room and was
on duty on 31.8.1995 on G.O. Net from
12.45 pm till 7.45 p.m. Similarly on
1.9.1995 he was on duty from 7:52 hours
to 12:45 hours and 19:45 pm to 7.45 a.m
on 2.9.1995. He has further proved the
entry, Ex.PW23/l from page no. 306 to 316
in the log book.

58

PW-24, Constable Balraj Singh

No. 299, has proved that he was on duty on
31.8.1995 on P.S. East Net, Police
Control Room, U.T. Chandigarh. He has
also described with regard to the call
signs used on wireless sets. He has also
proved his entry at page no. 287 regarding
receiving message, Ex.PW24/l. He has also
proved that on 3.8.1995 at 17:11 hours a
message was flashed and the entry in this
regard was made.

PW-25, Mohan Rajesh Shekhar has

deposed that he was owner of the Car
bearing registration No. DBD-949, in the
year 1995 and Jagtar Singh Tara was
employed with him as a driver. He has
also rightly identified the accused
Jagtar Singh Tara during the course of
examination. He further stated that
accused Jagtar Singh Tara remained
absent from duty w.e.f 24.8.95 to
31.8.1995 and he resumed his duty on
1.9.1995 and worked for 1.9.1995 and
2.9.1995. But thereafter, he never
returned back. He also deposed that he
used to receive some telephone calls from
Paramjit Singh and Raj for Jagtar Singh
Tara .

59

PW-26, Smt.Revathi Raj Shekhar,

who is the wife of PW-25, had
corroborated the statement of PW-25 with
regard to the ownership of car No. DBD-
94 9 and employment of Jagtar Singh Tara
in the firm of her husband. She has also
deposed that on 23.08.1995, she received
a message for Jagtar Singh Tara and
passed on the same to Jagtar Singh Tara,
who left Delhi on 24.8.1995 saying that
he has some personal work. She has also
rightly identified the accused Jagtar
Singh Tara, to be the same person who was
employed with her husband.

PW-27 , C . Subhash Chander ,

No. 781, was working in Wireless Control
Room and was on duty on 31.8.1995 on P.S.
Central Net. He has also proved the
entry, Ex.PW22/4 made in the log book of
Central Net covering the period 31.8.1995
and an entry, Ex.PW27/l regarding sending
force and checking of vehicles of the
suspicious persons in the area and
receipt of message was also confirmed.

PW-28, C.Rajinder Kumar was on

V.I.P Net of Police Control Room. He has
also proved different messages flashed
between 17:11 hours and 17:30 hours.

60

PW-29, Gautam Singh was working
as Wireless Operator in Police Control
room and he has proved that he was on
duty on 31.8.1995 and was posted in the
Police Control Room on Zebra Net at that
point of time. He has also proved his
entry, Ex.PW28/l, regarding messages
received about blast in Civil
Secretariat .

PW-30, HC Mohinder Singh was on

duty on 31.8.1995 and made entries in the
roznamacha register w.e.f 27.8.1995 to
10.9.1995. He has according, proved the
entry vide DDR No. 32, in relation to the
flashing of the message, Ex.PW30/l and
Ex.PW30/2 entry in the roznamacha of DDR
at serial no. 33, which was made in his
own hand writing. This witness has also
proved that the ruka, Ex.PW30/3, was
received by him, on the basis of which
FIR No. 96 of 1995, Ex.PW30/4, was
registered, which was in his hand
writing. An entry in DDR at serial no. 36
regarding the receipt of Ex.PW30/3 ruka
was made. This witness has also proved an
entry to the effect that copy of FIR,
Ex.PW30/6 was delivered to Shri A.K.Jain
then Area Magistrate.

61

PW-31, Sq.Commdr. P.K.Joshi, was the

incharge of Task Force Command Chandigarh
of the National Security Guards which
provides mobile security to Beant Singh,
then then Chief Minister Punjab and Shri
Bhajan Lai, then chief Minister Haryana
and he deposed that on 31.8.1995 he was
incharge of Task Force in National
Security Guard and he further proved that
on behalf of Task Force and on receiving
information regarding bomb blast in Civil
Secretariat he reached at the spot and
found that Beant Singh then Chief
Minister was lying dead there along with
some other casualties and there was
extensive damage to the building of
Secretariat and he accordingly directed
his force to cordon the area and removed
the dead bodies to the Hospital and
remain present at the spot. During the
investigations and all the arms and
ammunitions of the security agency lying
at the spot and also reported the list of
missing arms and ammunitions. He also
deposed that he received the dead bodies
of his force and sent the same to the
towns of the deceased persons vide
receipt, Ex.PW31/l. He has also proved
the postmortem report, Ex.PW2/ll, of

62

Kultar Singh which bears his signatures
at point A and at point B and also bears
the signature of R.K.Bhatachar j i, Team
Commander. He further proved the
postmortem report, Ex.PW4/22 of Rajinder
Parsad which bears his as well as the
signatures of Bhatacharji at point A and
B and he also proved the postmortem
report, Ex.PW5/ll of Dalbir Singh and
same bears his as well as signatures of
R . K . Bhatachar j i at points A & B.

PW-32, Subhash Kumar Dutta has

deposed that he was employed in Bhartiya
Kala Render and retired in 1987. He
further deposed that he had purchased an
old Ambassador Car bearing registration
No. DBA 9598, from one Paul Singh and he
proved the registration certificate of
the car mark WW. He further proved that
he insured the car and Ex.PW32/l,is the
certificate of Insurance which was issued
by the Insurance Company. He further
deposed that he sold the car, Ex.76 to
accused Jagtar Singh Tara and Jagtar
Singh Hawara and delivery receipt of
Car, Ex.PW32/2, bears the signatures of
Jagtar Singh Tara as Basant Singh at
point B. The witness has identified the
accused Jagtar Singh Tara, who has put

63

his signature on Ex.PW32/2, as Basant
Singh. This witness has also identified
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, who has
accompanied Jagtar Singh Tara.

PW-33, Tarlochan Singh, is an

electrician and also deals in the
business of sale & purchase of Scooters,
which he operates from his residence.
This witness deposed that accused

Paramjit Singh had given him Scooter
bearing registration No. DL-5S-F-0318 for
sale and its papers were taken into
possession by CBI vide memo Ex.PW33/l,
which bears his signatures as well as
of Harjit Singh, his cousin at point B.
This witness has also handed over the
insurance cover note Mark XX and Harjit
Singh had put his signatures at point A
and he also handed over the sale letters,
which bears the signature of one Jagtar
Singh, which are mark XX/1 to XX/4,
delivery receipt, mark XX/5, which also
bears the signatures of Harjit Singh at
point A. This witness has also proved the
Scooter, Ex.P70, which was handed over to
him by accused Paramjit Singh, out side
the court premises.

PW-34, Kamalpreet Walia, who

64

was working as an agent for sale
purchase of Scooters and vehicles,
deposed that Scooter make Bajaj Chetak
of 1990 Model, bearing registration

No. PB-11-1955, was purchased by him
from Amar Singh in the month of July,
1995 and after repairing the same, he
sold the same to deceased Dilawar Singh,
who was known to him through accused
Lakhwinder Singh, on 16 or 17.8.1995 and
he also handed over the

registration certificate and asked for
the name of the person in whose
name the permission is to be issued but
it was never taken. He further deposed
that he also handed over the original
affidavit of Amar Singh, Ex.PW34/l,to
the C.B.I along with form No. 29 and form
No. 30 Ex.PW34/2 to Ex.PW34/4. He also
identified the photo graph, mark YY, of
Dilawar Singh and put his signatures at
point-A and also identified the Scooter
as Ex.P70 in the court.

PW-35, P.Ganpati, a Journalist
by profession was working in the office
of UNI for collecting news and deposed
that on 31.8.1995, he received a fax
message from Babbar Khalsa International
claiming responsibility for assassination

65

of deceased Beant Singh. He further
deposed that on 6.9.1995 he received
another fax message in this regard and
proved the copies of both those messages
as mark AAA and mark BBB along with its
photo copies mark AAA/1 and mark BBB/1
respectively .

PW-36, Anand Parkash, Upper
Division clerk, in the Transport
Authority Loni Delhi, proved the
ownership of the Scooter No. DL-5SF-0318
to be in the name of Jagtar Singh s/o
Sandhu Singh, r/o Delhi and deposed that
file, Ex.PW36/l of the same was taken
into possession by the CBI as per memo
Ex. PW36/2 .

PW-37, Jagtar Singh has also
proved the ownership of the Scooter as
stated by PW-36.

PW-38, K . N . Prabhakar , who was

working as Personal Assistant to the
Editor Hind Samachar Group of News Paper,
Jalandhar deposed that on 31.8.1995, he
received fax messages mark DDD and mark
EEE from Babbar Khalsa International in
relation to the assassination of Sardar
Beant Singh and similarly on 7.9.1995

66

they again received fax message mark FFF
for the same reason, which he later on
handed over to C.B.I.

PW-39, Chander Mohan Bakshi, who

was working as SP in the CM Security
Punjab, deposed that on 31.8.1995, he
left the civil secretariat after
instructing the staff about the further
programme of Chief Minister but on the
way he heard a loud explosion and
immediately rushed back to the spot and
found that a bomb blast had taken place
in Civil Secretariat near the car of
Chief Minister as a result of which Chief
Minister Beant Singh along with other
persons were lying dead and he
accordingly started evacuation of the
injured and remained present during those
proceedings .

PW-40, Salamat Masih, who was on

duty at the residence of then CM Punjab
and his duty was to carry out the anti
sabotage check in the CM's residence
lawns and vehicles and deposed that on
31.8.1995 he carried out the anti
sabotage check of the residence and its
surroundings as well as the vehicles
forming part of CM's convoy and cleared

67

the same. He further deposed that after
the blast he reached at the spot. But he
was not allowed to go near to the
vehicles .

PW-41, Hem Chand, who was posted
as DSP of the security wing of CM Punjab
deposed that on 31.8.1995 he was on duty
at CM's office and at about 5.05 p.m the
CM left his office. But after 7-8 minutes
he heard an explosion and immediately
came down and found the bomb blast and
took the remedial steps .

PW-42, Amar Singh, s/o Mukand
Singh was the earlier owner of the
Scooter bearing registration PB-11-1955
and deposed that after purchasing the
scooter from Major Singh, he sold the
same in July, 1995 to one Kamalpreet
Walia and handed over the registration
book and one affidavit and two form for
transfer of the same which are Ex.PW34/l
to Ex.PW34/4 and also identified the
scooter as Ex.P77.

PW-43, Kaish Kumar, Clerk of the
Office of DTO, Ludhiana proved the name
of the registered owner of the Scooter
bearing registration no.PCP 2085 and

68

deposed that earlier it was in the name
of Vijay Chopra but in the year 1993 it
was transferred in the name of Harjit
Singh s/o Bhagwan Singh, r/o Patiala and
he handed over the record to the CBI.

PW-44, Sampuran Singh, Clerk,
DTO Office, Patiala proved the ownership
of Scooter bearing registration No. PB-
11-1955 and deposed that it was
registered in the name of Darshan Singh
s/o Gurbax Singh but later on it was
transferred in the name of Major Singh
s/o Gurbax Singh and then it was
transferred in the name of Amar Singh s/o
Mukand Singh in the year 1995 and he
handed over this record to the CBI.

PW-45, Vijay Kumar Chopra, who

was the original owner of the Scooter
bearing registration no.PCP-2085 deposed
that he had sold the above Scooter to
Harjit Singh s/o Bhagwan Singh in the
year 1992 as per the document, Ex.PW43/2
to Ex.PW43/5, which were handed over to
Harjit Singh along with the Scooter. He
also identified the said Scooter in the
Court .

PW-4 6, Man jit Singh deposed that

69

scooter bearing registration No. PCP-2085
was sold to Vipan by Harjit Singh in his
presence .

PW-47, Harjit Singh also deposed
that he purchased the Bajaj Chetak
Scooter bearing registration No. PCP-2085
in the year 1992 and then sold it to
Deepinder @ Vipan s/o Chaman Lai with the
help of PW-46, Manjit Singh and handed
over the scooter and documents to him
along with the affidavits and he also
identified the scooter in the court.

PW-48, Ranjit Singh, owner of
Ran jit Work Shop Sector 7 Chandigarh
deposed that on the reguest of Surender
Sharma in the last week of August, 1995
he allowed Surinder Sharma to use the
back yard of his service station to paint
a car .

PW-4 9, AS I Arun Kumar was

working as a Traffic Police Official and
deposed, that on 24.8.1995 he challaned
accused Balwant Singh along with his
companion, Jagtar Singh Hawara while
travelling on Scooter No . PB-11-1 955 as
per the challan chit, Ex.PW49/l for not
possessing the driving license and

70

accused Balwant Singh signed the challan
chit and he took into possession the RC
of the Scooter and later on handed over
these documents to CBI . He further
deposed that he identified the
photographs of Balwant Singh and Jagtar
Singh Hawara Ex.PW49/3 and Ex.PW49/4 and
he has also identified both these accused
persons in the court at the time of his
evidence .

PW-50, Tirlok Nath, a painter
working in Rehri market Sector 7 deposed
that in the month of August, 1995 on the
asking of Surinder Sharma, he painted two
number plates bearing registration No.
DBA-9598 and identify the same in the
court also, on the car, Ex.P76.

PW-51, Surinder Sharma,

proprietor of Surindera Spray paint
Sector 7 Chandigarh, deposed that he
knows accused Lakhwinder Singh through
Madanjit Singh @ Channa and Dalbir Singh
@ Maula and he painted the Scooter of
Lakhwinder Singh bearing registration No.
PCP-2085. He further deposed that on
26.8.1995 on the asking of Lakhwinder
Singh he repainted Car bearing
registration No. DBA-9598 into off white

71

colour and handed over the same to
Lakhwinder Singh and one more person who
accompanied him. He further deposed that
on 5.9.1995 Lakhwinder Singh was arrested
by the police in his presence from his
house at Village Kansal and he also
identified the accused present in the
court. He also identified the Scooter of
Lakhwinder Singh as Ex.P80 and deposed
that the scooter was recovered from the
possession of accused and was taken into
possession by the CBI vide memo,
Ex.PW51/l. He further deposed that on
26.8.1995, the other person accompanying
Lakhwinder Singh, who was identified as
Gurmeet Singh, was also arrested in his
presence and he also identified the
photographs of these accused persons and
also identified them in the court.

PW-52, P.K.Mehra was the

incharge of the deployment of the CRPF
jawans at the resident of CM Punjab and
in the escort and the pilot vehicles of
the CM and he accordingly named the
official deputed on 31.8.1995 for this
purpose .

PW-53, HC Baljit Singh was the

driver of one of the cars of the convoy

72

of the deceased CM and he accordingly
deposed that on 31.8.1995 after reaching
civil secretariat he along with other
drivers of the remaining two cars parked
in the porch and at about 5.10 p.m when
CM came down and sat in one of the cars,
which was being driven by CJagdish, a
bomb blast took place as a result of
which the driver Jagdish Singh and
deceased Beant Singh died at the spot
along with other persons.

PW-54, Deep Inder Mehta is a

friend of accused Lakhwinder Singh,
Balwant Singh, Gurmeet Singh and deceased
Dilawar Singh since 1987-88 and deposed
that Scooter No. PCP-2085 was purchased
by him from one Harjit Singh along with
the affidavit Ex.D-9. But later on it was
purchased by accused Lakhwinder Singh in
the name of his mother and father and
receipt, Ex.PW54/l was prepared. Later on
he handed over these documents to the
C.B.I. He further deposed that in the
month of August, 1995 on the request of
Dilawar Singh he took him to Kamalpreet
Walia and Dilawar Singh agreed to
purchase Scooter from Kamalpreet Walia
bearing No. PB-11-1955, Ex.P77, and after
purchasing the same he along with Dilawar

73

Singh handed over the Scooter to accused
Balwant Singh.

PW-55, Reema Kahlon was working
as S.T.D Operator in a booth set up in
the ground flor of house no. 981 Phase-IV,
SAS Nagar Mohali under Avtar Singh, owner
of the STD, and she accordingly deposed
that first floor of the house was
occupied by accused Gurmeet Singh and one
S.P.Singh, who are the tenants of the
owner of the STD, Avtar Singh and about
2-3 days prior to 31.8.1995, 2-3 young
man had visited the room of Gurmeet Singh
and she disclosed this fact to the C.B.I
and also identified the photographs of
those persons which includes the photo
graph of deceased Dilawar Singh mark
YY/2 .

PW-56, Manojit Pal was the

member of the CRPF Escort party deputed
for the security of C.M and deposed that
at about 5.00 p.m on 31.8.1995, when they
were ready with their escort vehicle, an
explosion took place in the Civil
Secretariat and he suffered injuries and
becomes unconscious.

PW-57, Kesar Dumra, who was

74

working as Peon in the Civil Secretariat
also deposed about the explosion on
31 . 8 .1995 .

PW-58, Satinder Kumar, who was

working as driver with Sardar Harcharan
Singh, then Health Minister of Punjab,
also deposed about the explosion which
took place in the Civil Secretariat, when
he went there along with Sardar Harcharan
Singh Brar.

PW-59, C.Balwinder Singh, who is

working in the Motor Transport Department
of Punjab Police, Chandigarh deposed that
accused Lakhwinder Singh was also working
with him in the same department and he
identifies the writing of the Lakhwinder
Singh when shown to him and deposed that
the document, Ex.PW59/A to Ex.PW59/D are
in writing of Lakhwinder Singh and bears
his signatures at point-A. He had also
identified the hand writing of the
accused Lakhwinder Singh on the
documents, Ex.PW51/3, Ex.PW59/E to

Ex.PW59/L and he has also identified the
accused Lakhwinder Singh in the Court.

PW-60, Raju Tamir Haran, grand
son of deceased Bhushan Sirhindi has

75

deposed that his maternal grand father
Bhushan Sirhindi was a Journalist and
accused Balwant Singh was working as
gunman with him and he used to reside
with his grand father and he identified
and recognized accused Balwant Singh. He
also deposed that accused Balwant Singh
had purchased a Green colour Bajaj Chetak
Scooter, Ex.P77 and he used to come to
their residence on this Scooter. He
further deposed that he also knows
deceased Dilawar Singh, who was friend of
Balwant Singh and he used to visit
Balwant Singh at their residence and
office and he has also identified the
photographs of Dilawar Singh mark-YY and
YY/1 to YY/5. One more fact disclosed by
this witness was that about 2-3 months
prior to the incident in guestion he
attended a call for Balwant Singh and the
person who was calling identified himself
as uncle of Balwant Singh and asked him
to convey the message to Balwant Singh
that he should meet him at Gurudwara
Shish Ganj , Delhi and he accordingly
passed on the massage. He also identified
the hand writing of Balwant Singh, on
Ex.PW60/A, the hand writing in the diary,
Ex.PW60/5-l to Ex.PW60/5-53 and also
identified his signatures on Ex.PW60/BB.

76

One important fact which comes from the
cross examination of this witness is that
since this witness has deposed against
the accused Balwant Singh and when
opportunity was granted but Balwant
Singh, who himself was conducting his
trial, he had given a writing in his own
hands, Ex. CD/1 in which he admitted that
whatever stated by this witness is
correct and he do not want to cross
examine him.

PW-61, HC Sukhbir Singh has

brought the service record of deceased
Dilawar Singh and proved the appointment
letter of Dilawar Singh, Ex.PW61/A and
Ex.PW61/B and further deposed that
deceased Dilawar Singh was dismissed from
services vide order dated 7.10.1994 w.e.f
18.9.1994, as per the order copy of which
is EX.PW61/C.

PW-62, C.Sukhwinder Singh has

brought the service record of accused
Balwant Singh and proved his service
book, Ex . PW62 / A and deposed that accused
Balwant Singh has joined as constable in
Punjab Police on 1.10.1987 and he was
posted as Gunman with the Bhushan
Sirhindi a Press Reporter in Patiala

77

since 19.5.1993.

PW-63, Avtar Singh was the owner
of the STD booth located in Plot No. 981,
Phase IV,Mohali and he accordingly
deposed that on the first floor of his
house there was one room set which was
rented out by him to one Satinder Pal
Singh @ Simpi, who was also sharing the
room with accused Gurmeet Singh as co-
tenant. He also deposed that Reema Kahlon
was working as STD Operator on his STD
booth and he identified the hand writing
of Reema Kahlon on the STD register and
also identified accused Gurmeet Singh in
the court.

PW-64, Arvind Kumar Parashar, an

employee of the B.P.L Engineering
Limited, brought the service record of
accused Gurmeet Singh and deposed that
this accused was working under him and
accused Gurmeet Singh used to put his
attendance in the attendance register and
he accordingly proved the attendance
register, Ex.PW64/A to Ex.PW64/C. He also
proved leave card record of accused
Gurmeet Singh, Ex.PW64/A and identified
the signatures of accused Gurmeet Singh
on the same. He also deposed that on

78

31.8.1995 accused Gurmeet Singh was on
leave. But he was present on his job on
1st & 2nd September, 1995 and thereafter
he was on leave on 4th as 3rd September was
Sunday and thereafter he attended his
duties on 5.9.1995 but remained absent
thereafter .

PW-65, V.K.Maheshwari, who was

posted as Metropolitan Magistrate, in
Patiala House, Court, New Delhi deposed
that on 22.1.1996 accused Balwant Singh
was produced before him for recording his
confession by the CBI as per the orders
of ACMM and accordingly after complying
procedural requirement and satisfying
himself, that there is no coercion,
pressure or threat etc, he recorded the
confessional statement of accused on
23.1.1996, Ex.PW65/E and after recording
the same it was read over and explained
to the accused who put his signatures on
each page of the same and thereafter he
certified it and sent to ACMM who forward
it to CJM, Chandigarh.

PW-66, C.Iqbal Singh was

working as a driver on one of the three
Cars of the deceased CM. Accordingly he
deposed that on 31.8.1995 he was on duty

79

as Driver on Car bearing registration No.
PB-27-6514 and in the evening when they
parked the cars in VIP porch in the Civil
Secretariat as the CM Beant Singh is to
go to his house and at about 5.00 PM when
Beant Singh came down and tried to sit a
bomb explosion took place resulting into
the death of the CM and other persons .

PW-67, T.P.Yadav, an employee
in B.P.L Sanyo Limited, deposed that
accused Gurmeet Singh was working in
their concern and he availed leave during
his job and he handed over the leave
record to the C.B.I, as per the memo,
Ex.PW67/A. He also identifies the leave
card of Gurmeet Singh, Ex.PW64/B to
Ex . PW64/D, which he handed over to the
Police .

PW-68, Puran Chand was the

tenant in a shed in the ground floor of
plot no. 981 Phase-IV Mohali owned by
Avtar Singh and he deposed that on the
first floor of the above building, above
the STD booth, accused Gurmeet Singh
along with one SP Singh, was residing and
he also identified Gurmeet Singh in the
court and he further deposed that on
28.8.1995, when he went into the room of

80

accused Gurmeet Singh to get some
medicine for toothache, he found that
five persons were sitting in that room
including Gurmeet Singh and when Gurmeet
Singh stated that he has no medicine he
came down. He further deposed that even
on 31.8.1995 he saw one of the those four
persons in the room of Gurmeet Singh and
two boys had also came in a Car and then
went away and one of them was wearing
police uniform and later on, on 6.9.1995
he identified the photographs of those
persons. He accordingly identifies

photographs mark FFFF, YYY-3, mark GGGG,
mark HHHH and disclosed that later on he
came to know that the person shown in
photo graph mark FFFF is Jagtar Singh
Hawara. He further deposed that on
8.9.1995, when the accused Gurmeet Singh
was arrested, he suffered disclosure
statement, Ex.PW68/A in his presence and
as per that statement accused Gurmeet
Singh took the CBI Police party to
H. No. 981, Phase-IV Mohali and a search of
house was conducted and some articles
were collected from the house and were
taken into possession as per the memo,
Ex.PW68/B. He also identified accused
Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara as
the persons, who had been visiting

81

Gurmeet Singh between 26.8.1995 to
31 . 8 .1995 .

PW-69, Madanjit Singh Chhina is

stated to be a friend of Lakhwinder Singh
and deposed that he met deceased Dilawar
Singh in the house of Lakhwinder Singh
and later on identified the photo graph
of Dilawar Singh mark TTT/1, TTT/2,
YYY/5. He further deposed that on
31.8.1995 he met Lakhwinder Singh at
Shanker Dhaba near Civil secretariat
along with Dalbir Singh @ Maulla and
thereafter on 2.9.1995 he again went to
Village Kansal, where Lakhwinder Singh
and Dalbir Singh @ Maulla met him and
they took liguor in the house of accused
Lakhwinder Singh.

PW-70, Parnab Sain, an

Administrative Officer of National
Insurance Company deposed that on
8.9.1995 accused Gurmeet Singh made a
disclosure statement, Ex.PW68/A relating
to this case and thereafter the search of
his room was conducted and the
incriminating articles were recovered as
per the memo, Ex.PW68/B in his presence
and he accordingly identified the accused
Gurmeet Singh and his photographs.

82

PW-71, Rajiv Singh was posted as
Reception Officer in the Office of CM and
he accordingly deposed regarding the name
and identity of the person who visited
Beant Singh on 31.8.1995.

PW-72, Prem Singh, who was

employee of Pritam Cycle Stand, Bus
Stand, Patiala deposed that Kirat
Mohinder Singh, was the owner of the
Cycle stand and the Scooter bearing
registration No. PB-11-1955, Bajaj Chetak
of Cream Colour, Ex.P77, was parked in
their cycle stand on 31.8.1995 at 6.40
P.M and after parking the scooter he
issued the slip, Ex.PW72/l and also
pasted the chit on the helmet Ex.P94
along with the registration number of the
Scooter and on 10.9.1995 he identified
the photo graph of that person as mark
QQQQ, when in his presence and in the
presence of Kirat Mohinder Singh and the
Scooter was also taken into possession
and it was searched there. On search of
the dicky of the scooter, a cloth belt,
Ex.P97 of Green Colour was recovered and
taken into possession safter converting
into sealed parcel vide memo of recovery,
Ex.PW72/2 and he also identified accused

83

Balwant Singh as the person who parked
the Scooter .

PW-73, Kirat Mohinder Singh is

the owner of Cycle Stand and he also
corroborated the version of PW-72 as
discussed above.

PW-74, Amrik Singh, who was a

taxi driver on taxi bearing registration
DAJ-431 deposed that on 28.8.1995, when
he was present at the Janta Taxi Stand,
Patiala, two persons took his taxi for
Mohali and they loaded two bags and on
the way they delivered the bags to a
person standing near the Gurudwara near
Bus Stand Mohali and then left his Taxi.
He further deposed that later on he
identified the photographs of those
persons as mark UUUU and mark UUUU/1 and
signed the same.

PW-75, Jasbir Singh, who was a

Tailor master running a shop in the name
& style of Stitch Co in AC Market,
Patiala, deposed that accused Balwant
Singh used to come to his shop being a
Punjab Police Official and was known to
him and on 24.8.1995, he along with one
more person, who was later on identified

84

as accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, came to
his shop and asked for stitching a cloth
belt as per the diagram prepared by
Jagtar Singh Hawara and as per the
measurement of that person, he
accordingly noted the measurement on the
bill book, copy of which is Ex.PW75/A-l
and they also purchased clothes for two
pants and ordered the stitching of the
same with a direction to deliver on the
same evening. He further deposed that
accused Balwant Singh came on the next
day i.e on 25.8.1995 and took the
delivery of one belt and pant and he
placed order of another cloth belt of the
same design of green colour and he
accordingly noted this fact on the
earlier slip and on 27.8.1995 both
accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh
Hawara took the delivery of pant and
second belt and he also identified the
second belt of green colour, article-
Ex. P-97, as the same belt, which was
stitched on the asking of Balwant Singh
and further deposed on 20.1.1996 accused
Balwant Singh identified his shop on his
presence and in the presence of CBI
official and he handed over the bill book
and the measurement slip, which was taken
into possession as per the memo,

85

Ex.PW75/B and he also identified the
photographs of other person mark WWWW and
WWWW/1 and identified his signatures and
he also identified accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara as the other person, who
accompanied Balwant Singh.

PW-76, Amarjit Singh, who is

also tailor master and running a shop in
the name & style M/s Sidhu Tailors,
Tripuri Town, Patiala deposed that on the
asking of accused Balwant Singh, who was
known to him, he stitched Police uniform
for accused Balwant Singh and his friend
Dilawar Sinigh, as per the bill-cum
measurement memo, Ex.PW7 6/l-A and
delivered the same to them on 27.8.1995
and later on he also stitched five more
uniforms on the asking of Balwant Singh
and delivered it to him as per the bill
cum measurement slip, Ex.PW76/l and he
identified the accused Balwant Singh and
photo graph of Dilawar Singh in this
regard .

PW-77, C.Pala Ram, who was on

duty at VIP gate and in whose presence
this bomb blast took place, accordingly
informed the matter to the police as to
how the bomb blast took place and deposed

86

accordingly .

PW-78, D.K.Tripathy was the SP

CM Security and he accordingly deposed
about the security arrangement and the
placement of cavalcade of the CM under
different security agencies and also
deposed that on 31.8.95, he was on

duty as SP Security and at about 5.05
p.m, when the CM Beant Singh, was to
leave the Civil Secretariat for U.T Guest
house and when he was about to get into
the car a powerful explosion took place
resulting into the death of other persons
and CM and he was also injured in the
blast and becomes unconscious.

PW-79, Gurdeep Singh, who was

also working as Incharge of the CM
Security deposed about the security
arrangement of the Beant Singh and the
formation of cavalcade and further
deposed that after receiving the
information of explosion he rushed at the
spot and found that deceased Beant Singh
died because of explosion along with
other persons .

PW-80, Kirpal Singh, who was

working as Account Officer in the Office

87

of Chief Engineer deptt. of Telecoms was
the person in whose presence, accused
Jagtar Singh Tara, since proclaimed
offender suffered a disclosure statement,
Ex.PW80/l and he signed the same as an
attesting witness and deposed

accordingly .

PW-81, Raghubir Singh, who was

the Sarpanch of Village Jhingra Kalan and
in whose presence the disclosure
statement of accused Nasib Singh was
recorded and the recovery of RDX was
made, deposed that accused Nasib Singh is
the resident of Village Jhingra Kalan and
on 18.9.1995, he was called by the CBI
authorities in the house of Nasib Singh
where RDX was recovered and taken into
possession by the Police but he failed
to support the story of the prosecution
in total but admitted that disclosure
statement of accused Nasib Singh
Ex.PW81/l, seizure memo of the RDX
Ex.PW81/2, the paper chit containing the
sample seal, Ex.PW81/3 bears his

signatures and during his cross

examination he admitted that RDX was
weighed and found to be 13kg . -7 0 Ogms . and
sealed in his presence in the katta
article P-98. He also admitted that he

88

signed these documents accepting the
version of the Police mentioned therein
as correct voluntarily without any
coercion or force, being the sarpanch of
the Village. He also admitted that he
never made any complaint to any police
authorities regarding no recovery of any
RDX from the possession of accused Nasib
Singh .

PW-82, Dr.R.K.Banta was the SMO

on duty on 31.8.1995 and he accordingly
deposed that all the injured brought to
the P.G.I were examined by him and under
his instructions by the various Doctors
and the medico legal reports were
prepared .

PW-83, Jasbir Singh, owner of
H.N0.68-A, Rattan Nagar Patiala deposed
that one room atop the porch on the 1st
floor was on rent with accused Balwant
Singh and he accordingly identified the
accused Balwant Singh in the court and
further deposed that on 5.9.95 this room
was searched by the CBI authorities in
his presence and all the articles found
there were taken into possession as per
memo Ex.PW83/l which was signed by him.

89

PW-84, Gurdev Chand, Custom
Inspector was the witness in whose
presence the house where accused Balwant
Singh was residing was searched and
articles were recovered as per memo,
Ex.PW83/l and he deposed accordingly on
this aspect.

PW-85, G.D.Achint, who was

working as Personal Assistant to AGM of
Central Bank of India, Chandigarh, was a
witness in whose presence H. No. 1223
Mohalla Gurunanak Nagar, Patiala, where
deceased Dilawar Singh was residing, was
searched and he accordingly deposed that
all the articles recovered from the room
were taken into possession as per memo,
Ex. PW85/1 .

PW-86, Balbir Singh, then
Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Punjab,
Patiala deposed that on 22.9.1995 accused
Jagtar Singh @ Tara suffered a confession
and after satisfying himself about the
requirements of the law, he recorded the
confession of accused Jagtar Singh Tara,
Ex. PW86/6 .

PW-87, Rajinder Kumar was then
Metopolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and he

90

deposed that on 6.1.96 on the request of
the prosecution he recorded the
statements of witnesses Tejinder Pal
Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Gurinder Singh
Ex.PW87/7, Ex.PW87/ll, Ex.PW87/17

respectively .

PW-88, Bodh Ram Garg, Senior
Telephone Operator, deposed that on
12.9.1995 CBI conducted the search of
house of Jaswant Singh, resident of
Village Mehra j , in his presence and
recovered the articles including an album
containing the photographs as per the
memo, Ex.PW88/l and all the photographs,
were also signed by him. He further
deposed that the said Jaswant Singh was
also present at the time of search in his
house .

PW-89, Inspector Hardip Singh

was a witness in whose presence H.N0.68-A
Rattan Nagar, Patiala, was searched and
all the articles lying there were
recovered as per memo, Ex.PW83/l and
deposed accordingly.

PW-90, D.P.Singh, who was the

Chief Investigating Officer of this case
from 4.9.1995 to 7.9.1995, accordingly

91

deposed about the investigation carried
out by him during these period.

PW-91, Ram Singh, who was a co-
employee of accused Navjot Singh,
identifies the hand writing and
signatures of Navjot Singh on the
documents, Ex.PW90/l to Ex.PW90/ll and
the writing in the diary, Ex.PW91/23 to
Ex.PW91/30 and deposed accordingly.

PW-92, Gurpreet Singh, who was

also a co-employee of accused Navjot
Singh, identifies the hand writing and
signature of Navjot Singh on the
documents, Ex.PW90/l to Ex.PW90/13 as
well as on the documents, Ex.PW91/12 to
Ex.PW91/22 but he refused to identity the
hand writing and the signatures of
accused Navjot Singh on the documents
Ex.PW91/23 to Ex.PW91/30 and deposed
accordingly .

PW-93, Major S.S.Bedi, who was a

security Adviser in Ranbaxy Lab, where
accused Navjot Singh used to work, handed
over the documents related to the service
record of accused Navjot Singh to CBI and
accordingly deposed that he handed over
the documents, Ex.PW91/l to Ex.PW91/13,

92

which were taken into possession as per
memo, Ex.PW93/l.

PW-94, Gurpreet Singh, who was a

friend of PW-95, Tejinder Pal Singh,
deposed that during his stay in the
Hostel of Jaswant Rai Chauhan, College
Nagpur, he met accused Balwant Singh and
Dilawar Singh, who were friend of
Tejinder Pal Singh and they used to stay
in their room in Laxmi Nagar, Nagpur and
he accordingly identified the photographs
of accused Dilawar Singh and Balwant
Singh. He further deposed that on
1.9.1995 his friend Tejinder Pal Singh
told him that a phone call has been
received from Balwant Singhj that he is
coming to Nagpur because he had killed
Beant Singh and accordingly on 2.9.1995
at about 5.06 p.m, accused Balwant Singh
reached Nagpur and then went to Amba
Jhari along with Tejinder Pal Singh and
he also went there and met them, where
accused Balwant Singh disclosed all the
details under which, he and his other co-
accused killed S. Beant Singh. Thereafter
he (Balwant Singh) stayed in their room
and on the next day, he was shifted to
some Hotel and he stayed there in the
name of Sandeep Sharma and he accordingly

93

proved the record of Hotel in this regard
to be in his hands and further deposed
that accused Balwant Singh further

resides at other Hotels of Nagpur.

PW-95, Tejinder Pal Singh, who

was friend of accused Balwant Singh has
also deposed as per the facts disclosed
by PW-94, Gurpreet Singh also deposed
that he was knowing Balwant Singh &
Dilawar Singh, as they were residing in
the same street and were his childhood
friends. He also reiterated the facts
disclosed by PW-94 and proved the extra
judicial confession of accused Balwant
Singh in detail and how and where Balwant
Singh was kept by him at Nagpur and other
places .

PW-96, Gurmeet Singh, a Dhaba
owner, deposed that on 31.8.1995 accused
Gurmeet Singh along with one young man
visited his dhaba in the after noon and
asked for the lunch and he accordingly
identified the photographs of those
persons and also identified the accused
Gurmeet Singh in the court.

PW-97, Shanker Lai Yadav, who

was also running a dhaba near Civil

94

Secretariat near local bus stand deposed
that he was knowing accused Lakhwinder
Singh being a driver Constable in Punjab
Civil Secretariat and on 31.8.1995
accused Lakhwinder Singh along with Maula
and Channa came to his dhaba at about
1.00 PM and took meal and went away and
he identifies accused Lakhwinder Singh in
the court in this regard.

PW-98, Balwinder Singh, who was

a witness of identity of the accused
persons, failed to support prosecution
and was declared hostile.

PW-99, Chamkaur Singh, who is

brother of deceased Dilawar Singh, is one
of the most material witnesses of the
prosecution and deposed that on 30.8.95
he met his brother Dilawar Singh for the
last time along with Balwant Singh as
they stayed in his house for the night
and on the next morning they left his
house in the white colour ambassador car
bearing No. DBA-9598 and later on he came
to know that this car is involved in the
bomb blast which took place in Civil
Secretariat killing Chief Minister and
other persons and came to know that his
brother Dilawar Singh is involved in this

95

assassination along with accused Balwant
Singh and he accordingly identify the
photo graph of accused Balwant Singh,
Gurmeet Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and his
brother Dilawar Singh and also identified
them in the court and further deposed on
5.9.1995 he identifies two legs and a
skull to be of his brother and thereafter
their blood samples were also taken and
ultimately the two legs and the skull was
handed over to them for cremation on
their application and he accordingly
deposed all the above facts in detail.

PW-100, Dilbagh Singh, who was

working in the Intelligence Branch and
was handling counter intelligence and
counter terrorism cases, deposed about
the constitution, modus operandi and
working of various militant outfits
including Babbar Khalsa International,
which has planned the murder of deceased
Beant Singh and he accordingly produced
the copies of the records relating to the
activities of the Babbar Khalsa
International and the statement of Babbar
Khalsa International, after the murder of
CM, Ex.P-137 to Ex.P-149, showing how
Babbar Khalsa International hatched the
conspiracy to kill the Beant Singh and

96

how they reacted after this incident.

PW-101, Satwinder Singh @
Satwinder Pal Singh @ Simpy was the

person who was residing with accused
Gurmeet Singh in H. No. 981 Phase-IV
Mohali, owned by Avtar Singh and he
accordingly deposed that he along with
accused Gurmeet Singh took this house on
rent and thereafter he becomes friendly
with Gurmeet Singh and during a, marriage
ceremony Gurmeet Singh introduced
deceased Dilawar Singh and later on,
prior to this occurrence on 28.8.1995
some friends of accused Gurmeet Singh
including Dilawar Singh, Lakhwinder
Singh, Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh
Hawara stayed in their room and were
found by him doing something on news
paper and on 29.8.1995, all of them left
the room and later on he identified
photographs of all of these persons mark-
00000, mark-PPPPP, mark-QQQQQ and he also
identified all these accused persons in
the court.

PW-102, Kuljit Singh was the

school mate of accused Balwant Singh and
accordingly deposed about the education
and posting of Balwant Singh in Punjab

97

Police and his residing at H.N0.68-A
Rattan Nagar, Patiala. He also deposed
that accused Gurmeet Singh present in the
court was introduced to him by Balwant
Singh along with his other friends
Tejinder, Gurmeet Singh, Charanjit Singh
etc. Lastly, he deposed that on 1.9.1995
accused Balwant Singh came to his Quarter
near G.R.P, Police Station, Ludhiana and
he was perplexed at that time and was
also clean shaven and on inguiry accused
Balwant Singh deposed that since he and
his companions had committed the murder
of Beant Singh, he i.e PW-102, should
inform his family at Raijona not to
disclose anything about his whereabouts.
He further deposed that Balwant Singh
also disclosed that deceased Dilawar
Singh acted as human bomb and accused
Jagtar Singh Tara drove Dilawar Singh in
a Ambassador Car to Civil Secretariat and
that car remain parked there. He also
identified the photographs of the accused
Dilawar Singh and accused Gurmeet Singh
besides identifying them in the court.

PW-103, Dinesh Kumar Sharma was

the Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala
Courts House, New Delhi in the month of
December, 1995 and on the reguest of

98

C.B.I, on 16.12.1995, he recorded the
confession of accused Shamsher Singh @
Shera and accordingly deposed about all
the proceedings for recording the
confession and also deposed that he
recorded the confession of this accused,
Ex.PW103/G after satisfying that he is
not under any threat, durance and
coercion and voluntarily made the same.

PW-104, Raman Kumar was friend
of Satinder Pal Singh @ Simpy, who
deposed that accused Gurmeet Singh was
sharing room with that Satinder Pal Singh
@ Simpy and further deposed that on
1.9.1995, when he visited the room, he
found that apart from Gurmeet Singh, four
other persons were sitting there. But he
failed to identify any of the accused
persons .

PW-105, Avinash Mehta was the

Superintendent of Central Excise and
Custom Chandigarh in the year 1996 and
he accordingly deposed that the hand
writing of accused Gurmeet Singh and
Lakhwinder Singh were taken in their
presence in Hindi, English and Punjabi
and he accordingly attested the same.

99

PW-106, H . L . Ramchandani was a

witness, in whose presence the specimen
signatures and the writing in English of
accused Balwant Singh was taken, and he
accordingly deposed about this fact.

PW-107, Sapinder Singh @ Pappu,

who was the owner-cum-driver of Truck
bearing registration No. PB-12-A-7 947 ,
deposed that he knows accused Shamsher
Singh @ Shera being related to him but he
failed to deposed anything further
against the accused despite the fact that
he was the witness, who took his Truck,
on the asking of accused Shamsher Singh,
towards Ajnala side along with accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara and brought two bags
of RDX. However, when he was cross
examined by the Public Prosecutor, he
admitted that on 15.11.1995, he made
statement before the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Delhi, Ex.PW107/l voluntarily
and without any threat and he admitted
that this statement was read over and
explained to him and he signed the same
but he alleged that he had made this
statement under the pressure of the
Police .

PW-108, Paramjit Singh was the

100

Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari
Court, Delhi in the month of November,
1995 and he deposed that on the request
of the CBI, he recorded the statement of
Sapinder Singh @ Pappu, Ex.PW107/l after
satisfying himself that the witness is
making the statement without any duress,
threat or pressure and he recorded the
same thereafter.

PW-109, Inderjeet Singh, who is

a Granthi, although failed to support the
prosecution but when he was declared
hostile and cross examined by the Public
Prosecutor, he admitted that once he went
to Karol Bagh, Delhi where accused
Paramjit Singh, who is being tried
separately, met him there and thereafter
he stayed in the house of sister of
accused Paramjit Singh. He further
admitted that at Delhi, at one point of
time he, accused Paramjit Singh and
Jagtar Singh Tara, who was identified by
him in the court, travelled together and
went to the house of one sikh gentleman
and demanded a sum of Rs . 2 lakhs from
that person.

PW-110, Manohar Singh failed to
support the prosecution and was declared

101

hostile .

PW-111, Mohan Pal, resident of
Village Rasoli, Tehsil Rajgarh deposed
that in May, 1995 one Surinder @ Chhinda
came to his village along with three
youngmen, Dilawar Singh, Maulla and Tari,
with a proposal to take an apple orchard
on lease and he accordingly took them to
Village Orchard's but they could not
succeed in getting any one and he also
identified the photographs of accused
Dilawar Singh and Lakhwinder Singh and
also identified accused Balwant Singh.

PW-112, Chunni Lai Wall was the

Superintendent, Custom Department

Chandigarh, in the year 1995, and deposed
that the specimen signatures and hand
writing of accused Lakhwinder Singh was
taken in his presence.

PW-113, Surinder Kumar, who was

friend of PW Mohan Pal, deposed that he
along with Tari, Maulla & Dilawar visited
the Village of PW-111, Mohan Pal, to take
some orchard on lease. He also deposed
that accused Lakhwinder Singh was also
with them at that time and he also
identified the photographs of Dilawar

102

Singh and Lakhwinder Singh. He further
deposed that after the assassination of
Beant Singh, Dalbir Singh @ Maulla and
Lakhwinder Singh met him on the 3rd day
and all of them consumed liquor in the
room of accused Lakhwinder Singh and he
also identified the photographs of
Dilawar Singh.

PW-114, Dalbir Singh @ Maulla,

who was friend of Madanjit Singh Chhina,
Surinder Singh Chhina and accused
Lakhwinder Singh, while identifying the
accused Lakhwinder Singh in the court,
deposed that he also knows the friend of
accused Lakhwinder Singh named Balwant,
Dilawar and Lakhwinder Singh, who was
having one Scooter bearing registration
No. PCP-2085, Ex.P80. He further deposed
that he visited the Village of Mohan Pal
along with these accused persons. He
further deposed that on 30.8.1995, on the
request of Dilawar Singh, he took accused
Balwant Singh to the shop of Surinder
painter on the Scooter of Lakhwinder
Singh, where Dilawar Singh was already
present and Balwant Singh took out a pant
from the Scooter and handed over the same
to Dilawar Singh and he also noticed the
Ambassador Car bearing registration No.

103

DBA-9598 .

He further deposed that on 31.8.1995,
accused Balwant Singh again met him at
the dhaba at 12.00 noon and he was
accompanied by one more person and later
on in the evening, he heard the blast and
when returned to his shop, Lakhwinder
Singh met him there being perplexed and
then in the evening he (Lakhwinder)
disclosed that Beant Singh has been
killed in bomb blast and he with help of
accused Dilawar Singh, Balwant Singh and
Jagtar Singh Hawara caused this blast.
He further deposed that on the next date
of the blast he saw the photographs of
the car in the news paper and found that
it was the same car which was taken by
Balwant Singh & Dilawar Singh.

PW-115, S.S.Basoya, Junior
Scientific Officer, is Finger Print
Expert and he deposed that on 7.10.1995
and 12.10.1995, he took the finger prints
of accused Lakhwinder Singh on the
sheets, Ex.PW115/l to Ex.PW115/15 and he
also identified the photographs of
Lakhwinder Singh, Ex.PWlll/3 and mark-
OOOOO.

104

PW-116, Anil Kumar, who is a

Tailor Master and running a tailor shop
in Village Kansal, deposed that he knows
accused Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha being
resident of Village Kansal and being a
constable in Punjab Police. He further
deposed that accused Lakhwinder Singh
came to his shop with a pant and
reguested him to loose waist of the pant
to its maximum in the presence of Maulla
and he handed over the pant after doing
the needful .

PW-117, Gian Singh, failed to
support the prosecution and was declared
hostile .

PW-118, Kishan Chand was running
a dhaba in the name and style of
Annapurna Dhaba and deposed that accused
Lakhwinder Singh and PW Dalbir Singh @
Maula were known to him and on 31.8.1995
before the bomb blast, he saw two Sikh
persons on Scooter with Dalbir Singh @
Maulla but he could not identify them.

PW-119, Dr.Gopalji Mishra, who

was posted as Director, Forensic Science
Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh at the
time of this bomb blast, deposed that on

105

the request of the SSP Crime, Chandigarh
he reached at the spot to find out the
manner and the nature of the blast, and
he accordingly took about 70-75
photographs of the place of occurrence
and on the next morning of 1.9.1995, he
again took some more photographs and
ultimately on 2.9.1995, he went to the
mortuary and took the photographs of the
skull and two legs and he accordingly
after developing and printing the
photographs, handed over the same to the
CBI and he identified all the
photographs, Ex.PW119/l to Ex.PW119/94.
He also brought the negatives of the
photographs in the court and proved the
photographs accordingly.

PW-120, P.C.Thakur deposed that
on 19.9.1995 accused Jagtar Singh Tara
gave specimen hand writing and signatures
in his presence.

PW-121, Anil Bhatia, resident of
Ghaziabad, deposed that he spotted
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara in his
neighboring house of Ram Singh and
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara also suffered
two disclosure statements before him,
Ex.PW121/l and Ex.PW121/2 on 23.1.1996

106

and he took the police party to H.No.A-
341-A Nand Gram Ghaziabad and got
recovered the map prepared by him,
Ex.PW121/3, and same was taken into
possession as per memo, Ex.PW121/4 and
thereafter accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
took them to the STD Booths located at
Meerut road and identified the same in
his presence.

PW-122, Bhupinder Singh, again
resident of Ghaziabad deposed that he
identifies the photographs of Ram Singh @
Kuldip, who had purchased a house bearing
No.341-A at his instance. He further
deposed that accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
used to visit the house of Ram Singh and
he identified him and accused suffered
two disclosure statements, Ex.PW121/l and
Ex.PW121/2 in his presence and thereafter
got recovered a map from the house of Ram
Singh, Ex.PW121/3 and same was taken into
possession vide memo, Ex.PW121/4 and
thereafter accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
also identified the STD booths at Meerut
road and he also identified the accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara in the court.

PW-123, Harbinder Singh, who is

relative of Manjinder Singh, residing in

107

U.K, deposed that he handed over letters
written by Manjinder Singh to him, to the
C.B.I, Ex.PW123/2, Ex.PW123/5, Ex.PW123/6
and also identified the photographs of
Manjinder Singh.

PW-124, Jasbir Singh,

Supervisor of the Gurdwara Sheesh Ganj ,
Delhi, deposed that he was working as a
Clerk and he proved the entry made by the
visitors in the register maintained for
the stay of devotees in the Gurdwara and
proved the record of the same.

PW-125, Dalbir Singh, who was

working as Sewadar in the Gurdwara,
Sheesh-Ganj also proved the entry made in
the visitors register regarding room
no. 37, Ex.PW124/A which was allotted to
Manjinder Singh, Paramjit Singh and
Ujjagar Singh on 19.06.1995.

PW-126, Munish Chadha, Manager
in Surya Hotel, brought the visitors
register of his Hotel, which was taken
into possession by the C.B.I and he
deposed that Sandeep Sharma and Jaskaran
Singh stayed in the Hotel from 23.11.1995
to 25.11.1995 in room no. 206 as per
entry made at serial no. 93 of the

108

visitors register, copy of which is
Ex.PW95/30 and Ex.PW95/31.

PW-127, Balbir Singh, who was

friend of Harbir Singh Bhullar settled in
Canada, deposed that Harbir Singh Bhullar
used to send money to one Hundal and
they know this fact as Harbir Singh
Bhullar used to inform this fact to them
on their telephone to further inform to
Hundal .

PW-128, Joginder Singh, who was

driver of a IAS Officer and on 31.8.1995,
he was on duty and present near V.I.P
gate, deposed that the bomb blast took
place in which the deceased CM died.

PW-129, Upkar Singh also deposed
about the blast which he heard while
sitting in the office of the DIG Crime.

PW-130, Rajesh Malhotra, who was

running a STD booth in Nandgram deposed
that accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
identified his STD booth at his own and
he signed memo, Ex.PW121/4, prepared by
the CBI in this regard in the presence of
some other witnesses and he also
identified the accused Jagtar Singh

109

Hawara in the court and his photographs
and disclosed that he used to make
international calls to Germany from his
STD booth.

PW-131, Anoop Singh, who was

working as Manager of Nanda Guest House,
Panipat, deposed that one Sandeep Sharma
stayed in their Guest House as per entry
dated 13.9.1995 and proved the entries
made in the visitors register by that
person, Ex.PW131/2.

PW-132, Vinod Kumar Vats,

Manager in the Surya Guest House, Delhi
also brought the visitors register of the
Guest House, Ex.PW123/7 and deposed that
as per entry made at serial no. 236
dt . 23 . 6 . 1995, one Manjinder Singh stayed
in their guest house from 23.6.1995 along
with another Sikh young man and during
the stay, one more person joined them and
deposed that he identifies the photograph
of sikh person and further identified the
accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh
Hawara, who came to meet Manjinder Singh
in their Guest House and he also
identified the photographs of Manjinder
Singh .

110

PW-133, Dinesh Chand, a STD

booth owner of Ghaziabad, deposed that on
23.1.1996, accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
identified his STD booth as per memo,
Ex.PW121/5 and also identified him in the
court .

PW-134, Murli Dhar, again a PCO
owner of Farukhabad, deposed that one
Tony was known to him and he used to make
International calls from his STD booth to
Germany and Norway.

PW-135, Manish Pal deposed that
on the asking of one Ashok Kumar,
resident of Fatehgarh, he arranged the
house of one Mr. Gupta on rent for said
Ashok Kumar and he also visited said
Ashok Kumar in the Hotel, where two
persons, one Pardeep Kumar and one
unknown was present, and later on he
identified that third person from the
photograph, Ex.PW135/l and came to know
that his name is Jagtar Singh Hawara and
the other person, who represented himself
as Pardeep Kumar, was actually Balwant
Singh, whose photo, graph he identified
as Ex.PW95/18.

PW-136, San jay Kumar, who was

111

also having a P. CO in the Awas Vikas
Colony, Farukhabad, deposed that as per
the PCO register, Ex.PW136/l which he
handed over to the C.B.I, some ISD calls
were made to Norway on 3.12.1995 and he
deposed as per those entries.

PW-137, Radhey Sham, who is the

owner of the Hotel Anant Railway Road,
Farukhabad, deposed that as per the
visitors register of the Hotel,
Ex.PW95/94, as per the entries, one
person giving his name as Ashok Kumar,
stayed in his Hotel in the month of
October, 1995 on three different dates as
per the entries made in the register and
2-3 persons also visited him. He
identified accused Balwant Singh as one
of those persons, who stayed with that
Ashok Kumar but failed to identify the
other one.

PW-138, Harish Kumar, who was

working as Receptionist at Hotel
President, Nagpur deposed that as per the
visitors register, Ex.PW94/3, one Sandeep
Sharma checked in their Hotel on 3.9.1995
at about 3.20 p.m, and checked out on
5.9.1995 and made the entires, Ex.PW94/l
in this regard and two other persons also

112

came with him at that time and he
identified Balwant Singh as the person,
who stayed there in the name of Sandeep
Sharma .

PW-139, Don Basco Joseph, a

Receptionist of Hotel President, Nagpur
deposed that as per the register,
Ex.PW94/3, accused Balwant Singh stayed
in their Hotel in the name of Sandeep
Sharma as per the entry, Ex.PW94/l and he
also identified accused Balwant Singh in
the Court.

PW-140, Radhey Parkunta, who was

working as Watchman in Mudra Complex,
Nagpur, deposed that for some times, he
worked at the PCO and as per the entries
in the PCO register, Ex.PW140/l on
4.9.1995, some calls were made and he
handed over those records to the police.

PW-141, C.Varinder Rana, who was

at duty on 31.8.1995 at the Civil
Secretariat at VIP Gate, deposed about
the bomb blast and stated that he also
suffered injuries in this blast.

PW-142, Kulwant Singh, who was

working as driver with J.S.Maini, then

113

Principal Secretary and who was on duty
with Mr.Maini on 31.8.1995, also deposed
about the bomb blast.

PW-143, C. Bakshish Singh, who

was on duty on the VIP gate of the Punjab
Civil Secretariat, deposed about the bomb
blast and the killing of Beant Singh and
also deposed that he also suffered
in j uries .

PW-144, D . P . Sehrawat , who was

working as an Assistant in the office of
Director General of Health Services at
Nirman Bhawan , New Delhi, was the person
in whose presence accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara has given his specimen hand
writing and signatures, Ex.PW144/l to
Ex.PW144/17 and he deposed that he
attested the sheets accordingly.

PW-145, Gurbax Singh was the

brother of the deceased Dhanwant Singh
and he deposed about the identification
of the dead body of his brother during
the inguest proceedings and also deposed
that his brother died because of the bomb
blast at the Civil Secretariat.

PW-146, Sudarshan Singh

114

identified the dead body of HC Ajaib
Singh and deposed accordingly.

PW-147, Kamal Kishore, who was

related to deceased Lachman Dass, deposed
that he identified the dead body of
deceased Lachman Dass, who died in this
bomb blast.

PW-148, Kaku Singh, a Gate
Keeper of the Secretariat, identified the
dead body of Tota Ram, who died in the
bomb blast.

PW-149, Dr.Sachin Bassi,

identified the dead body of Dr. Anil
Duggal, who died in the bomb blast.

PW-150, Sanjiv Kumar identified
the dead body of Yash Pal Bali, who died
in the bomb blast, and deposed

accordingly .

PW-151, Manjit Singh identified
the dead body of Ran jot Singh, who was
his father, who died in the bomb blast
and deposed accordingly.

PW-152, Bhupinder Singh

identified the dead body of Jagdish

115

Singh, who was his younger brother, who
died in Bomb blast and deposed
accordingly .

PW-153, Hardev Singh identified
the dead body of Chamkaur Singh, who was
related to him and who died in bomb blast
and deposed accordingly.

PW-154, Baldev Singh was related
to deceased Jagdish Singh, who died in
Bomb Blast and identified his dead body
and deposed accordingly.

PW-155, Amarjit Singh identified
the dead body of his brother Swaran
Singh, who died in bomb blast and
deposed accordingly.

PW-156, Sukhwinder Singh

identified the dead body of his father
Mukhtiar Singh, who died in bomb blast
and deposed accordingly.

PW-157, Surinder Singh deposed
that Dr. Anil Duggal and Dr.Rajnish Sood
were on duty with the Chief Minister,
Punjab in the capacity of Medical
Officers and on 31.8.1995, Dr. Duggal died
because of bomb blast.

116

PW-158, Kamaljit Singh

identified the dead body of MLA, Baldev
Singh, who was known to him, who died in
Bomb blast and deposed accordingly.

PW-159, Gurbachan Singh, who was

posted as Constable at Chandigarh deposed
that he was known to Lakhwinder Singh.

PW-160, R.S.Verma, Director,
Central Forensic Science Lab, Chandigarh,
who is a expert of explosive deposed that
on 8.9.1995, he was called by the C.B.I
for collecting the remanents and the
explosive substance from the room of
accused Gurmeet Singh, in house no. 981,
Phase-IV Mohali and accordingly as per
the identity disclosed by Gurmeet Singh,
he recovered some particles from the room
and examined and found the same to be
part of the RDX. Thereafter, he converted
those particles in a sample for
examination in the Laboratory and as per
his report, Ex.PW160/l, he found that all
the articles recovered from the room,
Article-Ex . P-82 to Article-Ex . P-90 , were
having the traces of RDX.

PW-161, Dr.Vijay Kumar, who was

117

also attached with Chief Minister as a

Medical Officer, deposed about the

identification of the dead body of
Dr . Duggal .

PW-162, C.Sukhwinder Pal Singh,

who was on duty in the security of the
Chief Minister, deposed that on 31.8.1995
he was present at the residence of Beant
Singh being a spare driver and at about
5.10 p.m., he received a wireless message
about the bomb blast and reached
Secretariat and found that Beant Singh
had died along with some other persons.
He also deposed that accused Lakhwinder
Singh, who was working as Constable
driver, was known to him and he was clean
shaven in those days and he identified
him in the court. He also identified the
photograph of deceased Dilawar Singh and
deposed that accused Lakhwinder Singh
once introduced Dilawar Singh with him
and as such he identifies both of them.

PW-163, Raj Mohan deposed that
on 5.9.1995, the police searched the room
of accused Lakhwinder Singh in his
presence and all the articles recovered
from there were taken into possession
vide memo, Ex.PWl63/3.

118

PW-164, P.C.Sharma, then CBI
Inspector deposed that as directed by the
10, he conducted the search of the room
of accused Lakhwinder Singh in the
presence of PW-163 and taken into
possession all the articles as per memo,
Ex. PW163/3 .

PW-165, Roop Singh, a Ballistics
Expert of CFSL, Chandigarh deposed that
on the asking of the C.B.I, he examined
the scene of occurrence of the blast on
1.9.1995 till 3.9.1995 and took into
possession number of articles from the
spot with the purpose to examine them for
the cause of the blast and the modus
operandi and after examining those
articles in the different Laboratories,
he found that this bomb blast took place
with the help of improvised explosive
device commonly known as IED which
exploded near the rear left side of the
car of the Chief Minister, bearing
registration No. PB-08-3469, at height of
three feet from the ground and keeping in
view the recovery of two legs and skull,
he confirmed that this explosion has been
caused by a human bomb and the RDX has
been used for the explosion.

119

He also examined the RDX
recovered from the possession of accused
Nasib Singh and reported that after
examination from the Chemical and
Instrumental analysis, the presence of
RDX based high explosive in the contents
has been confirmed and the RDX based high
explosive is also detected in all the 27
articles recovered from the spot.

He further deposed that on
11.10.1995, he examined a belt, Ex.P97,
and found that 2 kg of RDX based high
explosive can be filled in the Ex.P97.
Similarly he also examined a battery,
Ex.P153 in Ballistic Division and Physics
Division and found that such type of
battery could have been used in causing
the explosion on 31.8.1995 and he also
confirmed the presence of RDX on the news
paper piece, Ex.P88 which was recovered
from the room of accused Gurmeet Singh,
and which was used for the preparation of
the RDX filled in the belt used by
deceased Dilawar Singh.

PW-166, Tilak Raj Mehra, a

document expert of the CFSL, New Delhi
compared the questioned and standard
writing attributed to accused Lakhwinder
Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Balwant Singh,

120

Jagtar Singh Tara and Navjot Singh and
concluded that all the questioned writing
and signatures were all of these accused
persons on all the questioned documents
and he deposed about his conclusion in
all the cases as per his reports
Ex.PW166/l to Ex.PW166/26 and justified
his conclusion in this regard.

PW-167, Dr.Rajinder Singh,

Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL was a
member of the team of the CFSL
authorities, who examined the scene of
crime from 1.9.1995 to 3.9.1995 and
deposed about the recovery of the
incriminating articles from the spot.

PW-168, Kewal Singh is a formal
witness, who took into possession the
medico legal reports of the injured
persons and then handed over the same to
the C.B.I.

PW-169, Sat Pal Singh, was also
associated with DSP of the CBI in the
investigations and he accordingly deposed
about the part played by him in the
investigations .

PW-170, H.R.Chopra, then DSP,

121

CBI also deposed as to the part of
investigations conducted by him but which
are of formal nature.

PW-171, SI Om Parkash was the

person, who conducted the inquest
proceedings of some of the dead bodies
and he accordingly proved those
proceedings .

PW-172, C.Amarjit Singh was

associated during the postmortem
proceedings of deceased Mukhtiar Singh
and he accordingly deposed about those
proceedings .

PW-173, SI Baljit Singh was

associated in the postmortem proceedings
of deceased Swaran Singh and deposed
accordingly .

PW-174, SI Tarlok Singh

conducted the inquest and postmortem
proceedings relating to the dead body of
Ran jot Singh and proved the same
accordingly .

PW-175, SI Harbhajan Singh

prepared the inquest proceedings relating
to the dead bodies of Yash Pal Bali, ASI

122

Jagjit Singh, Chamkaur Singh, Lachman
Dass, Rajinder Parsad and also deposed
about the postmortem of these dead
bodies .

PW-176, SI Gamdoor Singh took
the dead bodies of deceased Kultar Singh
to the Hospital for the postmortem
examination. He also obtained the
permission of the SDM for the postmortem
of dead body of deceased Beant Singh and
the postmortem of two legs and skull
recovered from the spot and deposed
accordingly .

PW-177, SI Sukhdev Singh was

associated during the inquest proceedings
of deceased Mukhtiar Singh, Rajinder
Parsad, Balbir Singh and proved those
proceedings .

PW-178, S.K.Chadha, Senior
Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi was
also one of the member of the team, who
examined the scene of crime and being a
Finger Print Expert, he took the chance
finger prints from the car bearing
registration No. DBA-9598, as per the
memo, Ex.P178/l, along with the
photographs and after examining those

123

prints in the laboratory and after
comparing the same with the specimen
finger prints of accused Gurmeet Singh,
Lakhwinder Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara and
Balwant Singh, as per his report, Ex.PW-
178/5 and Ex . PW-178/14 , found that two
chance finger prints lifted from the car
marked Q-4 and Q-15 matches with the
specimen finger prints of accused
Lakhwinder Singh and Balwant Singh
respectively and deposed accordingly.

PW-179, SI Ved Parkash conducted
the inguest proceedings relating to dead
bodies of deceased Lachman Singh,

Rajinder Parsad, Chamkaur Singh, Tota
Ram, Hardial Singh, Ajaib Singh, Jagdish,
Beant Singh, Kultar Singh and Balbir
Singh and he accordingly deposed about
these proceedings. He also deposed about
the various incriminating articles
recovered from the spot.

PW-180, Jasbir Singh, who was

running a taxi, deposed that on 31.8.1995
accused Balwant Singh took his Jeep Taxi
from Bus Stand Sangrur for going to a
Village near Rampura Phool and he
accordingly took him and he got down from
the jeep near Gurudwara of the Village.

124

He also deposed that he has identified
the photo graph of Balwant Singh before
the CBI, Ex.DRRRR, and also identified
him in the court.

PW-181 Goldi Gupta deposed that
in the year 1996, the visitors guest
register of the guest house was taken
into possession by the CBI as per memo,
Ex.PW131/4 and he also identified the
register, as Ex.PW123/7.

PW-182, Constable Surinder Kumar

deposed that he took the dead body of
Dhanwant Singh for postmortem and after
doing the needful, he handed over the
documents to SI Om Parkash deposed that

PW-183, HC Anil Kumar deposed
that he accompanied PW Nanha Ram to PGI,
where after recording the statement of
Pala Ram Ex.PW30/3, he took the same to
the police Station, where formal FIR,
Ex.PW30/4, was registered.

PW-183-A, HC Anil Kumar proved
the entries of DDR No. 30, 34, 39 dated
9.9.1995 and proved the copies there of.

PW-184, Amarjit Kaur, owner of

125

house no. 243 Phase-7 Mohali, deposed that
she gave his one room on rent to one
Jagroop Singh, who was residing there
with his brother Gurdip, but she failed
to depose that accused Navjot Singh used
to visit Jagroop Singh and thus she was
declared hostile.

PW-185, Mewa Singh, who was

running a tea shop near the MT Section of
Civil Secretariat, deposed that he was
knowing accused Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha
being a driver of MT Section. He further
deposed that accused Lakhwinder Singh was
residing in rented accommodation in
village Kansal near Shiv Temple and he
was having scooter bearing No. PCP-2085.
He further deposed that he met Dalbir @
Maulla and deceased Dilawar Singh with
Lakhwinder Singh and on 30.8.1995,
Lakhwinder Singh along with Dilawar Singh
and two other persons visited his shop
and he accordingly identified photographs
of Dilawar Singh, Ex.PSSSS and signed the
same. He also identified the photograph
of Lakhwinder Singh, Ex.PWlll/3. However,
this witness could not identify accused
Lakhwinder Singh saying that he was clean
shaven at that time. He also deposed that
even on 31.8.1995, accused Lakhwinder

126

Singh, visited his shop along with some
person whose photograph is Ex.PW185/A.

PW-186, Paramjit Singh, who is

residing in Ghaziabad in Mohalla Ramgarh
has failed to depose in favour of the
prosecution and was declared hostile.

PW-187, Ramesh Chand, who was

working as Assistant Manager in Hotel
Laxmi Palace Jaipur, deposed that as per
the Guest register, Ex.PW187/l, at serial
no. 91 dated 7.11.1995, one Jaskaran Singh
son of Ram Singh and Rajiv Kumar
resident of Panipat checked in the Hotel
on 7.11.1995 and left at 8.00 a.m on
8.11.1995 and proved the entries made by
Rajiv Kumar as Ex.PW87/l-A, which was
taken into possession by the police as
per memo, Ex.PW187/2 and he handed over
this record to the Police.

PW-188, Babu Lai, proprietor of
Ganpati Guest House, Jaipur deposed that
as per the guest register, Ex.PW188/l,
vide entry dated 14.9.1995, one Ajmer
Singh son of Santokh Singh arrived in the
guest house at 7.40 a.m, accompanied by
two male persons, one female and one
child and they stayed in room no . 6 up to

127

16.9.1995 and he handed over the entries
to the CBI accordingly.

PW-189, HC Paramjit Singh has

registered the formal FIR and proved the
same .

PW-190, ASI Ranjit Singh,

deposed that Car No. DBA-9598, article P-
76 was lying in Police Station, North and
on 1.9.1995, it was examined by Expert
S.K.Chadha and Gautam Rai and they took
the photograph and finger prints in his
presence as per the memo, Ex.PW178/l,
which bears his signatures.

PW-191, SI Neeraj Sarna of

Crime Branch, Chandigarh deposed that he
was present on 3.9.1995 at the scene of
crime and the same was inspected by the
CBI team along with expert team of the
CFSL and some incriminating articles
were lifted from the spot as per the
memo, Ex.PW191/A, after converting the
same into sealed parcels in the presence
of Inspector P.K.Dhawan and DSP A.K.Ohri
and he also identified those articles as
article Ex.P-186 to Ex.P-189 in the
Court .

128

PW-192, Jagdish Singh is the

brother of accused Paramjit Singh, who is
facing trial in a separate trial, but he
has failed to support the story of the
prosecution for which he was cited as a
witness .

PW-193, Harmohinder Kaur, sister
of accused Paramjit Singh mentioned above
also failed to support the story of the
prosecution for which she was cited as a
prosecution witness.

PW-194, Babu Singh was the Head
Gate Keeper of Punjab Civil Secretariat
and he accordingly deposed about the bomb
blast on 31.8.1995 and the death of
Dhanwant Singh, another watchman in the
blast .

PW-195, R.D.Kalia, DSP, CBI

investigated the case at Jaipur and he
had taken into possession the guest
register of Ganpati Guest House from its
proprietor Babu Lai Sharma as per memo,
Ex.PW188/2. On 23.1.1996, he also took
into possession the register, Ex.PW187/l
of Hotel Laxmi Palance, Jaipur through
memo, Ex.PW187/2 from Ramesh Chand and
deposed accordingly.

129

PW-196, Atma Ram, who was

working as lift-man in the Civil
Secretariat, also deposed about the bomb
blast as heard by him.

PW-197, Ranjit Singh, Constable
deposed that while posted at Chandigarh,
he was knowing accused Lakhwinder Singh
and his friend Dilawar Singh resident of
Patiala. He further deposed that on his
identification, accused Lakhwinder Singh
opened his account with Punjab National
Bank Chandigarh. He identified the
signatures of Lakhwinder Singh on account
opening form, Ex.PW59/J, as well as his
own signatures and the photograph of
Lakhwinder Singh, ExPW197/l, and further
deposed that, at that time, accused
Lakhwinder Singh was clean shaven. He
also identified accused Lakhwinder Singh
in the court and his photographs mark,
YY/5 and mark D-SSSS.

PW-198, Sunil Kumar Sharma also
remained associated in the investigation
and deposed that on 18.9.1995, he
recorded the statement of Harpreet Kaur
and took into possession document,
Ex.D150 from PW Dilbagh Singh and also

130

obtained his signatures on the back of
the poster, Ex.PW150/l. He also deposed
that on 14.1.1996, he took into
possession the PCO register of STD booth
Farukhabad, Ex.PW198/l through memo,
EX.PW198/2 in the presence of Vinod Kumar
Khurana and on the same day, he took into
possession another PCO register of Anu
PCO, Farukhabad, Ex.PW136/l vide memo,
Ex.PW136/2 from Sanjay Kumar and he also
recorded the statement of Dashrath Parsad
Tiwari, who identified the photograph of
Balwant Singh. He also deposed that on
15.1.96, he took into possession the
guest register of Hotel Anand, Ex.PW94/44
vide memo, Ex.PW137/l from Radhey Sham
and thereafter he took into possession
the STD register, Ex.PW134/2 of Murli STD
vide memo, Ex.PW134/l in the presence of
Murli Dhar, owner who also identified the
photograph of Jagtar Singh Hawara,
Ex.PW134/3 and signed the same.

PW-199, Darshan Singh, who was

working as driver with the S.P. Security
at the relevant time, deposed that he was
knowing accused Lakhwinder Singh, who was
also working in Police deptt and residing
in Village Kansal and he was clean
shaven at that time. He also deposed that

131

Lakhwinder Singh purchased a scooter and
some person used to visit him and he
identify the photographs of Dilawar
Singh, Ex.PSSSS and also identified
accused Lakhwinder Singh in the court.

PW-200, HC Hakam Singh deposed
that on 31.8.1995, he was on duty at
Civil Secretariat at VIP gate along with
other officials, and he proved their
duties as such.

PW-201, S.V. Singh deposed that
on 22.1.1996, on the asking of CBI, he
was associated in the investigation and
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara suffered
disclosure statements, Ex.PW201/l and
Ex.PW201/2, and accused Balwant Singh
also suffered a disclosure statement,
Ex.PW201/3 in his presence and in the
presence of one Than Singh and thereafter
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara took the
police party to Daryaganj and identified
Surya Guest house vide memo, Ex.PW201/4
in his presence. He also deposed that
thereafter accused Balwant Singh also
identified the same place vide memo,
Ex.PW201/5 and then accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara took the police party to PCO
located at Bhagat Singh market and

132

identified the same as per memo,
Ex.PW201/6 and all these documents were
signed by the accused persons and the
witnesses in his presence. He also
identified both accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara and Balwant Singh in the court.

PW-202, Dhana Ram was on duty at
the Secretariat on the date of blast, and
deposed about the deployment of the
security personnel at the VIP gate.

PW-203, Gurdial Singh, who was

the line officer, Security in the Civil
Secretariat also deposed about the
deployment of security staff.

PW-204, Parkash GobindJi

Trivedi, who was a partner of Hotel Anand
Mehal, Nagpur, deposed that as per the
guest register, Ex.PW95/3, as per
entires, Ex.PW95/l, one Sandeep Kumar
Sharma stayed in his Hotel along with
Tejinder Singh and this record was taken
into possession by the C.B.I on 5.1.1996
vide memo, Ex.PW204/A in his presence
along with the bill book, Ex.PW204/2
containing carbon copy of bill
dt. 5. 9. 1995.

133

PW-205, Suresh Goel Trivedi,

another partner of Anand Mehal Hotel also
deposed about the stay of Sandeep Sharma
from 5.9.1995 to 6.9.1995 as deposed by
PW-204 .

PW-206, Dineshwar Trimbakrao
Deshmukh deposed that as per the
withdrawal form, Ex.PW206/2 and

Ex.PW206/3, on 5.9.1995 a sum of
Rs.25,000/- was withdrawn by Gurinder
Singh, Account holder from his account
and he handed over the record to the CBI.

PW-207, Harcharan Singh, a co-
villager of accused Wadhawa Singh (Since
proclaimed offender) deposed that accused
Wadhawa Singh was also the member of the
society of the Village and he accordingly
identify his signatures on the fax
massage, mark AAA, as Ex.PW207/l and
similarly he also identified his
signatures on the fax messages, mark
AAA/1, mark DDD, mark-DDD/1, mark EEE,
mark EEE/ 1 , mark FFF , mark FFF/1.

PW-208, Harpreet Singh alleged
that he knows one Jodh Singh, who was
also under trial with him in Tihar Jail
Delhi but he failed to depose that said

134

Jodh Singh introduced him to Jagtar Singh
Hawara and thereafter he was declared
hostile to the prosecution.

PW-209, Tara Singh, who was the

Sarpanch of Village Dasuwal and a co-
villager of accused Mehal Singh (Since
proclaimed offender) identified the
signatures of Mehal Singh on the fax
messages, mark AAA, mark AAA/1, mark DDD
and mark DDD/ 1 .

PW-210, Ajay Gupta, owner of the
Parbhat Hotel, Agra deposed that as per
the guest register, Ex.PW95/35, on
6.11.1995, one Rajiv Kumar resident of
Panipat stayed in his Hotel and made
entry, Ex.PW95/36 with his signatures,
Ex.PW95/37 and stayed till the morning of
7.11.1995 and thereafter on 8.11.1995, he
again checked in along with another
person vide entry, Ex.PW95/38 with
signatures, Ex.PW95/39 and stayed upto
9.11.1995. He further deposed that on
9.11.1995, one Gurpreet Singh also took a
room and stayed in the Hotel along with
one Gentleman as per the entry,
Ex.PW95/40 with signatures, Ex.PW95/41
and they left the Hotel at about 1.30
p.m. He also deposed that vide entry

135

dated 15.11.1995, Ex.PW95/42 with
signatures of Rajiv Kumar, Ex.PW95/43,
same Rajiv Kumar along with one Jaskaran
Singh again stayed in his Hotel from
16.11.1995 and all the record was taken
into possession by the CBI vide memo,
Ex.PW210/l. He also identified the
photograph of Rajiv Kumar as mark TTTTT
and his signatures on the same,
Ex. PW210/2 .

PW-211, Narinder Singh Rana

handed over the registration record of
the vehicles no.DBA-9598 and no. DL-3C-E
2104 to the CBI as per the memo
Ex.PW211/l and deposed that Ambassador
Car no. DBA-9598 was owned by Mrs. Reva
Dutta w/o S.K.Dutta of Pachim Bihar, New
Delhi .

PW-212, Balwant Singh deposed
that on 20.1.1996, accused Balwant Singh
suffered disclosure statements, Ex.PW-
247/3 and Ex.PW-247/4 and he & Goldu
signed the same and thereafter accused
Balwant Singh took the police party to
the Mall Road at Patiala and disclosed
the place from where he hired a taxi for
Mohali and pointing out memo, Ex.PW-212/1
was prepared with the signatures of

136

accused Balwant Singh. Thereafter accused
Balwant Singh led the police party in
Tripuri Market, Patiala and identified
the shop of tailor from where he got the
clothes stitched and pointing out memo,
Ex.PW76/2 was prepared in the presence of
Amarjit Singh, Tailor Master and the
measurement book of tailor was also taken
into possession. Thereafter accused
Balwant Singh took the police party to
the Kabari Bazar and identified the shop
of kabari, from where the iron balls were
procured and pointing out memo, Ex.PW-
212/2 was prepared in his presence. He
also deposed that then accused Balwant
Singh took the police party to the
Dharampura Bazar, Patiala and pointed out
the shop from where he procured Battery
and electric switch and pointing out
memo, Ex.PW-212/3 was prepared. After
this accused took the police party to
A.C. Market, Patiala, from where he got
the belt stitched and pointing out memo,
Ex.PW75/B was prepared.

PW-213, Karamjit Singh, a co-
resident of accused Gurmeet Singh,
Lakhwinder Singh, Dilawar Singh and
Balwant Singh identified all these
accused persons and deposed about their

137

antecedents and deposed that for the last
time, he met Dilawar Singh on 15.8.1995,
when he took liquor with him and under
the influence of liquor Dilawar Singh
disclosed that he is going to do a big
incident and he identified the
photographs of accused Dilawar Singh and
also identified accused Gurmeet Singh,
Balwant Singh and Lakhwinder Singh.

PW-214, Santokh Singh, resident
of Guru Nanak Nagar, Patiala identified
deceased Dilawar Singh and Gurmeet Singh
being residents of his locality.

PW-215, Avinder Vir Singh proved
the copies of the FIR No. 12 dated
2.2.1991 and FIR No. 39 dated 26.3.1991,
Ex.PW215/l and Ex.PW215/2.

PW-216, Charanjiv Singh deposed
that on 20.9.1995, accused Jagtar Singh
Tara suffered a disclosure statement,
Ex.PW216/l in his presence and in the
presence of Mr. Anil Anand and he signed
the same in his presence and thereafter
he took the police party to the Sahirdaye
Apartments, Pachim Vihar, New Delhi and
identified the house of S.K.Dutta, who
came out of the house and a pointing out

138

memo, Ex.PW32/8 was prepared in his
presence and S.K.Dutta was joined in the
investigation. He also identified accused
Jagtar Singh Tara in the court.

PW-217, Harjit Singh @ Raja, an

electrician by profession, deposed that
he knows Jarnail Singh @ Joga, who was
running his business of Electric Works
and he used to work with them and accused
Paramjit is the brother of Jarnail Singh.
He further deposed that in the month of
September, 1995, he met accused Paramjit
in their factory and Paramjit expressed
an apprehension, he may be arrested by
the Punjab Police on account of death of
Sardar Beant Singh. He further deposed
that on 22.9.1995, the CBI took into
possession Scooter, Ex.P70 in his
presence along with its documents vide
memo, Ex.PW33/l.

PW-218, Harkesh Singh, NSG

Commando, who was working as Ranger-I in
the Escort of the deceased Chief
Minister, deposed that on 31.8.1995, on
receiving the message that the CM is
going out, he took up his position and at
about 5.05 p.m, Shri Beant Singh CM
Punjab, came into the porch and he was

139

facing towards the CM and when the CM was
talking to Dr.Duggal and was going to sit
in the Car, he saw one person in police
uniform coming towards the CM and
thereafter a blast took place resulting
into the death of CM & other persons. He
deposed that the person, who came towards
the CM was a young person and was not
wearing turban or a cap.

PW-219, HC Nahar Singh handed
over the service file of Dilawar Singh to
the Police, Ex.PW161/A as per memo,
Ex.PW219/l and also identified the
photograph of deceased Dilawar Singh, his
date of birth and his matriculation
certificate and signature of Dilawar
Singh on the service book.

PW-220, Anwar Khan, a

Receptionist of City Lodge, Calcutta
deposed that as per the guest register,
Ex.PW220/l, as per the entry at page 80,
one Santokh Singh son of Arjun Singh
along with five other persons stayed in
their Guest House, vide entry Ex.PW-
220/2 .

PW-221, Mumtaz Khan, who was

working as Manager of the New City

140

Lodge, Calcutta at the relevant time
corroborated the testimony of PW-220 and
reiterated the facts stated by PW-220.

PW-222, Himmat Singh @ Bhai

Mistri, a neighbour of Jagjit Singh
deposed that he knows Jagjit Singh, who
stayed in H.No. B-50 Vishavkarma Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi being a neighbourer
for the last 15-18 years but he stated
that he does not know Paramjit Singh and
thereafter he was declared hostile.

PW-223, Thakur Dass, Manager in
Kohinoor Hotel, Agra deposed that as per
the guest register, Ex.PW223/3, as per
entry, Ex.PW223/l, vide entry no. 3837
dated 19.12.1995, two persons Gaurav
Chawla and Surinder Bansal stayed in
their Hotel from 19.12.1995 to 22.12.1995
and as per the bill, copy of which is
Ex.PW223/2, they charged room rent. He
further deposed that he handed over the
record to the CBI and also identified the
photographs of the person, who stayed in
the Hotel, vide photographs, Ex.PW-223/4
and Ex. PW-223/4-A.

PW-224, Narain Rakshi, Manager
of the Hotel Prabhat Chikitola, Agra,

141

deposed that he identified the photograph
Ex.PW-224/1 and Mark WWWWW of a person,
who came to their Hotel to meet two
persons, who also stayed in the Hotel.

PW-225, Pardeep Chand deposed
that on 16.1.1996, the hand writing and
signatures of accused Balwant Singh in
English, Hindi and Punjabi were taken in
his presence on the sheets, Ex.PW225/l to
Ex.PW225/23 and those were attested by
him .

PW-226, Badruzzaman, who is

Manager of Hotel Classic, Calcutta,
deposed that as per the Hotel register,
Ex.PW226/l vide entry no. 2571 dated
20.09.1995, Gurmeet Singh, Jaswant Singh,
Gurjit Singh, Kirpal, Dinesh and one Kaur
stayed in their Hotel in two rooms upto
30.9.1995 and the entries were made by
the customer, which are Ex.PW226/3 and
Ex.PW226/3-A and he handed over this
record to the C.B.I vide memo, Ex.P226/2.
He further deposed that on the asking of
the CBI, he identified the photographs of
the persons, who stayed in the Hotel as
Ex.PW95/22, Mark VVVVV and Mark VVVVV/1
and put his signatures on the same but he
failed to identify those persons in the

142

court .

The number PW-227 has been skipped
inadverten tly .

PW-228, Inspector P.K.Dhawan,

who remained associated in the
investigation of this case with the CBI,
deposed that on 2.9.1995 the
investigating team visited the place of
occurrence along with the CFSL team and
took into possession all the
incriminating articles vide seizure memo,
Ex.PW228/l, as per the detailed mentioned
therein. He further deposed that
similarly on 3.9.1995, the Investigating
Team again collected incriminating
articles, as per memos, Ex.PW191/A and
Ex.PW191/B, as per the details mentioned
therein, in his presence and he has also
identified all those articles in the
court .

PW-229, Ravi Gambhir, Inspector,
CBI, who was also a member of the
Investigating team, deposed that on
16.1.1996 he went to Calcutta and took
into possession the records of Hotel
Classic, Hotel New City Lodge and
recorded the statements of concerned
witnesses and got the identity of the

143

accused Balwant Singh from the Hotel
staff and handed over the record to the
Chief Investigating Officer.

PW-230, Girish Joshi , owner of
Hotel Kiran, Agra, deposed that as per
the Hotel register, two persons Gurdev
Bansal & Surinder Bansal stayed in their
Hotel from 22.12.1995 and 23.12.1995 as
per the entry, Ex.PW-230/1 and the
certificate, Ex.PW-230/2 and he issued
the bill, copy of which is Ex.PW-230/A in
this regard.

PW-231, Rajesh Kumar, Inspector,
CBI, who was also member of investigating
team deposed that on 11.12.1995, accused
Shamsher Singh was arrested at Patiala in
his presence. He further deposed that on
3.1.1996, he went to Nagpur and took into
possession record of the Hotel President,
Nagpur as per memo, Ex.PW3 9/l and
recorded the statement of the Hotel
staff. Thereafter he went to Rajesh
Telecom Centre, Nagpur and took into
possession the computerised statement of
calls and the call register, vide memo,
Ex.PW231/l and recorded the statement of
the witnesses. He further deposed that
Watchman Radhey identified the

144

photographs of Balwant Singh and signed
the same and thereafter on 5.1.1996, he
took into possession the records of Hotel
Anand Mehal and also took into possession
the record of the Anand Telephone Centre,
Nagpur and recorded the statement of all
these witnesses.

PW-232, Gurdeep Singh, SHO P.S

Sadar, Kapurthala proved the History
sheet record of Wadhawa Singh and the
details of the cases in which he was
involved .

PW-233, Jodh Singh, resident of
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi deposed that he
knows Jagtar Singh Hawara and Paramjit
Singh, being the members of Akhand
Kirtani Jatha and was declared hostile by
the prosecution.

PW-234, S.L.Mukhi, Senior

Scientific Officer, compared the disputed
documents along with specimen writings
and the signatures of the accused persons
and proved his report in this regard.

PW-235, San jay Garg, who was

posted as Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis
Hazari Court at Delhi, deposed that on

145

the request of the CBI, he recorded the
statement of witnesses Chamkaur Singh u/s
164 Cr.P.C, Ex.PW99/7 as per the
procedure required under the law and sent
the same to the concerned court.

PW-236, CM Patel, a Serological
expert examined the incriminating
articles sent to the CFSL and gave his
report, Ex.P236/2 in this regard.

PW-237, A.K.Ohri, SP, CBI who

was member of the Investigating team
deposed that on 1.9.1995, he started
investigations of this case by recording
the statement of the injured persons and
on 3.9.1995, he took into possession the
incriminating material in the presence of
CFSL team as per the seizure memo,
Ex.PW191/A and Ex.PW191/B and as per the
details mentioned therein and handed over
the same to the Chief Investigating
Officer. He further deposed that on
5.9.1995 he conducted the search of the
house of accused Gurmeet Singh at Patiala
and recovered the Album containing
photographs of Gurmeet Singh and Dilawar
Singh as per memo, Ex.PW237/l and
identified those photographs. He further
deposed that after that, he conducted the

146

search of house of accused Dilawar Singh
in the same locality as per memo,
Ex.PW85/l and all the articles mentioned
in the report, were taken into
possession. Thereafter on 12.9.1995 he
went to the Village of Foster father of
accused Balwant Singh, namely, Jaswant
Singh and conducted the search of his
house in his presence as per memo,
Ex.PW88/l and took into possession all
the articles and mentioned therein and
recorded the statement of the witnesses
and handed over the same to the Chief
Investigating Officer.

PW-238, Inspector Vijay Kumar,

who was also member of the Investigating
Team of the Chandigarh Police deposed
that on 4.9.1995, PW-51, Surinder Sharma
made a statement relating to this case
and thereafter another witness Balwinder
Singh was called and his statement was
recorded and both these witnesses
identified car No. DBA-9598, Ex.P76 and
disclosed that it is the same car which
was painted by Surinder Sharma at the
instance of accused Lakhwinder Singh. He
further deposed that on 5.9.1995, he went
to Village Kansal to locate Lakhwinder
Singh and accordingly on the identity of

147

PW-51, Surinder Sharma and Balwinder
Singh, accused Lakhwinder Singh was
arrested along with scooter No. PCP-2085
and search memo was prepared and taken
into possession as per the seizure memo,
Ex.PW51/2 and the Scooter was also taken
into possession vide separate seizure
memo, Ex.PW51/l in the presence of both
the witnesses. After that, accused
Lakhwinder Singh took the police party to
the parking area in Sector 22-C,
Chandigarh, where accused Balwant Singh
was found standing and was accordingly
arrested and all the incriminating
articles were taken into possession vide
seizure memo, Ex.PW51/4 in the presence
of both the witnesses Surinder Sharma and
Balwinder Singh and thereafter the
custody of the accused persons was handed
over to the CBI team. He further deposed
that on 5.9.1995, the room of accused
Lakhwinder Singh was searched in the
presence of PW C.Gurbachan Singh by
P. C. Sharma, CBI Inspector and 14
incriminating articles lying therein were
taken into possession as per memo,
ExPW163/3 .

PW-239, A.G.L.Kaul, who was also
member of the investigating team deposed

148

about the investigations carried out by
him. As per this witness, on 18.01.1996,
he visited Agra and took into possession
the record of the Hotel Deepika, Hotel
Prabhat and recorded the statements of
the Hotel Staff and the Hotel Staff
identified the photographs of some of the
accused persons, who stayed in their
Hotel including Balwant Singh. He further
deposed that after the arrest of Balwant
Singh, his specimen handwriting and
signatures were taken in his presence on
the sheets, Ex.PW225/l to Ex.PW225/23 and
on 22.1.1996, further specimen hand
writing of the accused was obtained on
sheets, Ex.PW106/l to Ex.PW106/19. He
further deposed about the details of the
investigations carried out thereafter
including the recovery of the
identification of various places made by
accused Balwant Singh from where he got
the uniform and belt stitched, from where
he purchased the 9 volt battery and
switch and from where he purchased the
balls which were used as a missiles in
the belt bomb.

He further deposed that on
28.01.1996, he went to Surya Guest House,
Daryaganj and took into possession the

149

records from the Hotel staff and recorded
their statements. On 30.1.1996,

similarly, he took into possession the
records from a Hotel of Ambala City and
recorded the statement of Hotel Staff and
deposed about the investigations carried
out by him in details.

PW-240, Inspector Nanha Ram was

the first Investigating Officer of the
Chandigarh Police, who conducted the
investigations till the time it was taken
over by the CBI .

Accordingly, he deposed that on
31.8.1995, after receiving information of
bomb blast, he immediately reached at the
spot and inspected the place of
occurrence and immediately took all the
remedial steps along with other police
persons for sending the injured and dead
bodies to the Hospitals and cordoned off
the area of the bomb blast and conducted
a detailed inspection. As per this
witness, during the inspection, he found
an Ambassador Car in the parking area
towards Haryana Secretariat having
registration No. DBA-95 98 , Ex . P7 6 and he
found that the car was painted afresh as
paint was not fully dried. Accordingly,

150

he suspected that the said car might have
been used in the commission of crime and
as such, he deputed a person to guard the
car and found that all the three cars of
the CM were badly damaged along with
other police vehicles. Police

photographer as well as Dr.Mishra of FSL
Punjab also reached at the spot and they
also inspected the spot and took the
photographs, Ex.PW119/l to Ex.PW119/71,
showing as details of the place of
occurrence and scene of crime.

After conducting the proceedings at
the spot, he reached at P.G.I,

Chandigarh and recorded the statement of
C.Pala Ram, Ex.PW30/3, who deposed as to
how the bomb blast took place.
Thereafter, he again reached at the spot
and conducted the search of car No. DBA-
9598 and from the registration
certificate mark WW, he came to know that
the Car was registered in the name of
Mrs.Reva Dutta and he accordingly took
into possession the RC, Insurance Cover
Note and slip containing writings in
Punjabi vide separate seizure memo,
Ex.PW177/7 and the car was also taken
separately vide seizure memo, Ex.PW177/6
along with the bunch of keys. He also

151

proved the inquest proceedings of all the
dead bodies and deposed that during the
investigation, he found two sheared legs,
one of which was near the car of CM,
Punjab and a skull without torso, which
was later on identified to be of deceased
Dilawar Singh and all the dead bodies
were sent to the Hospitals for postmortem
examination and in the meanwhile, formal
FIR was registered.

He also prepared the inquest
report of the dead body of deceased Beant
Singh and two legs and a skull and
thereafter he prepared a detailed rough
site plan of the place of occurrence,
Ex.PW240/2. He also proved that the
photographs of two legs and skull were
also taken by the Expert, which are
Ex.PW119/71 to Ex.PW119/94. He also
deposed that he took into possession the
various articles lying at the spot as
mentioned in the seizure memo, Ex.PW179/5
and Ex.PW179/8. He further deposed that
on the same day, he also recovered all
the available incriminating articles
like burn metallic pieces, some debris
of the VIP Car, clothes and other
articles numbering in 27 and those were
taken into possession as per memo,

152

Ex.PW179/6 and he also identified those
articles as Ex.P159 to Ex.P185. He also
deposed about the postmortem and inquest
proceedings of the dead and examination
and injury record of the injured.

He further deposed that on
1.9.1995, investigation of this case was
handed over to the CBI and as such, he
handed over all the case diary documents
prepared by him to Shri S.K.Saxena, DSP,
CBI and the case property recovered from
the spot, was deposited in the malkhana
of the Police Station.

He further deposed that after
transfer of the investigation to the CBI
he remained associated in the
investigations of the case along with the
CBI as per their direction.

PW-241, Surinder Pal, who was

also member of the investigating team
deposed about the investigation carried
out by him. As per this witness, on
1.9.1995, he had taken S.K.Chadha, Finger
Print Expert of CFSL, New Delhi and
Gautam Rai, Photographer to the Police
Station North, Chandigarh where the Car
bearing No. DBA-9598 was examined by the

153

Experts for taking chance finger prints
and after taking the requisite prints and
photographs, memo Ex.PW78/l was prepared,
which was signed by the witnesses. He
further deposed that Sh . S . K . Chadha has
taken 35 questioned prints and
photographs and as per his direction,
rear view mirror of the car was also
taken into possession for examination in
the Laboratory along with further
incriminating articles, recovered from
the Car and thereafter he recorded the
statement of the witnesses associated in
the investigation, as per the direction
of the Chief Investigating Officer.

He further deposed that on
6.9.1995, both accused Lakhwinder Singh
and Gurmeet Singh were produced in the
court and their police remand was
obtained and thereafter he also deposed
about the detailed investigation carried
out by him, which will be discussed at
the appropriate time.

PW-242, Dr.M.A.Ali, Principal
Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi has
examined the questioned documents
recovered during the investigations of
the case with the admitted and specimen

154

hand writing and signatures of the
various accused persons and gave his
opinion and proved the same in the court
as per his report, Ex.PW242/l to
Ex. PW242/17 .

PW-243, A.P.Singh, who was also
member of the investigating team, deposed
about the details of the investigation
carried out by him, which will be
discussed at the appropriate time.

PW-244, Dr.R.S.Dhanker, who was

also member of the investigating team,
deposed about the details of the
investigations carried out by him and it
will be discussed at the appropriate
time .

PW-245, Dr.Lalji Singh, Director
Centre for Cellular and Molecular
Biology, Hyderabad has conducted the DNA
test to establish the identity of the
deceased Dilawar Singh as the Human bomb
on the basis of two legs and skull
recovered from the spot and accordingly,
he deposed that on the asking of the CBI,
he came to Chandigarh, where two legs and
head lying in the mortuary, were shown to
him and father and brother of deceased

155

Dilawar identified the body of Dilawar
Singh but they were not 100% sure. As
such to establish this fact through DNA
Finger Printing, the blood samples of
Harnek Singh father of the deceased,
Chamkaur Singh, brother of the deceased
and her mother were taken and thereafter
some samples of some muscle pieces were
taken from both the legs and skull, vide
a separate identification card in the
sealed parcels. After this, he conducted
the requisite DNA test for comparison and
matching of the DNA of Dilawar Singh with
the samples of his family members and as
per his report, Ex.PW245/7 he found that
both the legs and the skull are the part
of the body of the same person and that
deceased Dilawar Singh was progeny of
aforesaid Harnek Singh and Surjit Kaur as
the DNA of body parts and Harnek Singh &
Surjit Kaur matched with each other.

PW-246, Shri A.K.Chanda was also a
member of the investigating team under
DSP Punia, who was the first Chief
Investigating Officer, and he accordingly
deposed that on the asking of the Chief
Investigating Officer, he brought Harnek
Singh and Chamkaur Singh to P.G.I for the
identification of two legs and a skull

156

and both of them identified the same to
be of Dilawar Singh and thereafter their
blood samples were also taken in his
presence .

PW-247, Randhir Singh Punia,

who was the first Chief Investigating
Officer from the side of CBI and
investigated the case upto 7.9.1995,
deposed about the details of the
investigations carried out by him, which
will be discussed later on at the
appropriate time.

PW-248, S.N.Saxena was the main Chief
Investigating Officer of the case, who
took over the investigation from PW-247.
He also deposed as to the details of the
investigation carried out by him and by
the other members of the Investigating
Team, as per his instructions, leading to
the arrest of each and every accused
person and the act & conduct of the each
and every accused person to link him with
the crime & question. The gist of the
investigation of this witness is that
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, who was
trained in Pakistan, was motivated by the
terrorists to kill Beant Singh and
consequent to that, he came to India and

157

conspired with the remaining accused
persons to commit the crime, consequent
to which, Dilawar Singh, assassin, acted
as an human bomb and exploded himself
near the Chief Minister, Beant Singh on
31.8.1995, resulting into the death of
Beant Singh and other persons.

IMPORTANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE
PROSUECITON:

56. A Although, it was a marathon trial

involving thousands of documents but the important
documents relied upon by the prosecution and which
are material for the adjudication of the case are
mentioned herein below for ready reference :-

Ex.PW30/3 :

Statement of Constable Pala Ram
giving the first hand information as
to how the bomb blast took place
and on the basis of which formal
FIR No. 96 Ex.PW30/4 was registered
in the Police Station North,
Chandigarh

EX.PW217/2 :

Copy of the FIR No . RC 9(S)/95-SIU
dt. 1.9. 1995 registered by the CBI
after taking over the investigation
of this case, as per the directions

158

of Ministry of Home Affairs.

EX.PW116/1

to EX.PW116/4 6:

All the proceedings relating to the
postmortem examination of dead
bodies of Yash Pal Bali, Lachman
Dass, Mukhtiar Singh and Ranjodh
Singh including the inquest
proceedings and other police
proceedings

All the proceedings relating to
postmortem examination of dead
bodies of Chamkaur Singh, ASI
Jagdish Singh, Tota Ram and Dhanwant
Singh including the inquest
proceedings and other police
proceedings

All the proceedings relating to the
postmortem examination of dead
bodies of Swaran Singh, Kultar Singh
including the inquest proceedings
and other police proceedings

EX.PW3/1 to
EX.PW3/10

Ex.PWl/1

to Ex.PWl/12

EX.PW2/1

to EX.PW2/21

159

All the proceedings relating to the
postmortem examination of dead
bodies of Jagdish Singh s/o Dial
Singh including the inquest
proceedings and other police
proceedings .

EX.PW4/1 to
EX.PW4/23

All the proceedings relating to the
postmortem examination of dead
bodies of Ajaib Singh & Rajinder
Parsad including the inquest
proceedings and other police
proceedings .

All the proceedings relating to
the postmortem examination of dead
body of Balbir Singh including the
inquest proceedings and other police
proceedings .

EX.PW6/1 to
Ex.PW6/95

All the proceedings relating to the
postmortem examination of dead body
of Beant Singh the then Chief
Minister, Dr. Anil Duggal and Baldev
Singh and the proceedings
conducted for thepostmortem of two
legs and head recovered from the

EX.PW5/1

to EX.PW5/12

160

EX.PW14/1

to EX.PW14/12

EX.PW32/1 to
EX.PW32/9

EX.PW34/1 to
EX.PW34/4

place of blast, which was

unidentified including the inquest

proceedings and other police
proceedings .

Copies of the MLRs of all the
injured namely Amar Singh, Bakshish
Singh, Manojit Pal, Varinder Rana,
Joginder Singh, Kesar Singh, Manmohan
Singh, Upkar Singh, Kulwant Singh
and Satinder Kumar, who received
injuries because of this bomb blast.

The registration certificate, copy
of Insurance note, copy of the cash
receipt, copy of form No. 29 and 30
and memo of identification of Car
No.DBA-9598, Ex.P76 as proved by PW-
32 Subhash Kumar Dutta, who sold
this car to accused Jagtar Singh
Tara, who represented himself as
Basant Singh while purchasing the
car .

Non judicial
affidavit of
and name of

stamp paper
Amar Singh
transferee

on which
was typed
was left

161

blank along blank form no. 29 & 30
relating to Scooter No.PB-11 1955
Ex.P77, which was sold by PW-34 to
deceased Dilawar Singh assassin.

EX.PW42/1 :

Registration book of Scooter No.PB-
11-1955, which was earlier owned by
PW-34 Kamalpreet Singh Walia, who,
in turn, sold the same to deceased
Dilawar Singh.

EX.PW43/1 to
Ex.PW43/6 and
EX.PW44/1 to
Ex.PW44/10 and
EX.PW47/1

All the documents related to
ownership and transfer of Scooter
No.PCP-2085, which was originally
owned by PW-45 B.K.Chopra, who
sold the same to PW-47 Harjit Singh,
who, in turn, sold the same to
accused Lakhwinder Singh.

Documents relating to the

registration of the Scooter No.PB-
11-1955 originally in the name of
Darshan Singh and thereafter
transferred in the name of Major

EX.PW44/1 to
EX.PW44/10

162

Singh and then in the name of Amar
Singh PW-42.

Ex.PW49/l :

Traffic Challan Book proved by PW-
49, ASI Arun Kumar vide, which
accused Balwant Singh was challaned
on 24.8.1995.

EX.PW59/A to
EX.PW59/L :

The original documents including the
identity card, driving licence, 2-3
applications of accused Lakhwinder
Singh, one Account Opening Form of
the Bank and 2-3 slips of cash memos
containing the hand writing and
signatures of accused Lakhwinder

Singh as identified by PW-59

C.Balwinder Singh.

Ex. CD/1 :

Writing of accused Balwant Singh
vide, which he stated that he does
not want to cross examine PW-60 Raju
Tamir Haran.

Ex . PW60/A,
Ex . PW60/B ,
EX.PW60/B-1 to
EX.PW60/B-53

163

The original hand writing and

signatures of accused Balwant Singh
in his diary as identified by PW-60
Raju Tamir Haran.

Ex . PW61/A to
Ex . PW61/C :

The letter
termination
Singh as S.P.

Ex . PW62/A to
Ex . PW62/D

Service book, appointment letter and
other record relating to the
appointment of accused Balwant
Singh as Constable in the Punjab
Police and his posting as gunman
with Bhushan Sirhandi, a Press
Reporter .

Attendance register, leave card of
accused Gurmeet Singh proved by PW-
64 & identified the hand writing
and signatures of accused Gurmeet
Singh .

Ex . PW65/A to

of appointment &
of assassin Dilawar
0 in the Police Deptt.

Ex . PW64/A to
Ex . PW64/D

164

Ex . PW65/G

Ex . PW68/A

Ex . PW68/B

Ex . PW68/C

EX.PW72/1

Proceedings relating to recording of
the confession of accused Balwant
Singh by PW-65 B . K . Maheshwari , then
Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala
House, New Delhi.

Disclosure statement of accused
Gurmeet Singh made in the presence
of PW-70, Pranab Sain.

The memo of recovery of the articles
exhibited as Ex.P-83 to Ex.P-93
recovered from the room of accused
Gurmeet Singh in the conseguences of
his disclosure statement.

The memo of search of room of
accused Gurmeet Singh along with
recovery of articles .

Slip containing the registration of
Scooter No . PB-1 1-1 955 parked by
accused Balwant Singh in the parking
of PW-72.

165

EX.PW72/2 :

Memo of recovery of Scooter and other
articles lying in the Scooter found
during the search of the Scooter
No . PB-11-1 955 made in the presence of
PW-72, Prem Chand and PW-73, Kirat
Mohinder of Pritam Cycle Stand,
Patiala .

Ex . PW7 5 / A ,
EX.PW75/A-2 &
Ex . PW75/B

The measurement-cum-bill book

containing stitching of belt by PW-
75, Jasbir Singh on the asking of
accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar
Singh Hawara.

The measurement-cum-bill book of PW-
76, Amarjit Singh, Tailor Master
containing the slip Ex.PW76/l-A for
stitching the uniform of accused
Balwant Singh and deceased Dilawar
Singh .

Ex.PW80/l :

Disclosure statement of accused
Jagtar Singh Tara recorded in the
presence of PW-80, Kirpal Singh.

EX.PW76/1 to
EX.PW76/4

166

Ex.PW81/l :

Disclosure statement of accused
Nasib Singh allegedly made in the
presence of PW-81, Raghubir Singh.

Ex.PW81/2 :

Recovery memo of RDX recovered from
the residence allegedly recovered
from the house of Nasib Singh, in
the presence of PW-81.

Ex.PW83/l :

Search memo regarding the

search-cum-recovery memo conducted
in the house of accused Balwant
Singh in the presence of PW-83,
Jasbir Singh landlord of the house.

Ex.PW85/l :

Search-cum-Recovery memo
articles recovered from the
the deceased Dilawar Singh
in the presence of
G.D.Achint .

Ex.PW86/l to
Ex.PW86/13

All the proceedings relating to the

recording of the confession of

accused Jagtar Singh Tara u/s 164

and the
room of
compared
PW-85,

167

Cr.P.C by PW-86 Sh.Balbir Singh then
Special Judicial Magistrate,

Patiala .

EX.PW87/1

to Ex.PW87/23 :

Proceedings relating to the
recording of statement of the
witnesses Gurinder Singh, Gurbachan
Singh and Tejinderpal Singh by
Rajinder Singh then Metropolitan
Magistrate, Tis Hazari,New Delhi.

Proceedings relating to the search
and recovery of the articles from
the house of Jaswant Singh, Foster
father of Baljit Singh showing the
recovery of articles, Ex.PW-121 to
Ex. PW-136 .

EX.PW104/A :

Memo of recovery for taking into
possession the service book of
accused Balwant Singh prepared by
PW-89, Inspector Hardip Singh.

Ex.PW90/l and
Ex.PW90/2 :

Proceedings regarding the search of

EX.PW88/1 to
Ex.PW88/3

168

house of Balwant Singh.

EX.PW91/1 to
Ex.PW91/22

Ex.PW93/l

EX.PW94/1 to
Ex.PW94/3

Various goods receipts and the
application and other documents in
the hand writing of accused Navjot
Singh, as proved on the file by
PW-91, Ram Singh and PW-92, Gurpreet
Singh, a co-employee of accused
Navjot Singh.

Seizure memo vide, which personal
file of accused Navjot Singh, Store
Clerk, Ranbaxy Lab Limited, along
with the goods receipts were taken
into possession from PW-93, Major
S.S.Bedi, Security Adviser of
Ranbaxy Lab Limited.

The entries made by PW-94, Gurpreet
Singh in the Hotel Register Ex.PW-
94/3 of Hotel President Sita Bardi,
Nagpur in the name of Sandeep

Sharma on the asking of accused
Balwant Singh, in the presence of PW
Tejinder Pal Singh

169

Ex.PW95/l to
Ex.PW95/3 :

The entry No. 1842 on the Hotel
Register, Ex.PW95/3 of Anand Mehal
Lodge, Nagpur made by PW-95 on the
asking of accused Balwant Singh in
the name of Sandeep Sharma.

Ex.PW95/4 :

Seizure memo containing the letters
written by accused Balwant Singh to
PW-95 and handed over by him to the
police. The letters are Ex.PW60/B-54
to Ex.PW60/B-62

Ex.PW95/5 to
Ex.PW95/16 :

Sheets containing the specimen hand
writing and signatures of PW-95,
Tejinder Pal Singh.

EX.PW95/17
to Ex.PW95/25
Mark FFFFF,
Mark YY/3 to
mark YY/5,
Ex.PW88/3
Ex.PW95/26

Photographs of Balwant Singh and
deceased Dilawar Singh.

EX.PW60-B-1 to
EX.PW60-B-53

Writing on the pages of diary, Ex. PW-

170

60/B in the hands of Balwant Singh,
as identified by PW-95, Tejinder Pal
Singh .

Ex.PW95/29 to
Ex.PW95/50 :

Various entries made by accused
Balwant Singh in his assumed name as
Sandeep Sharma, Rajiv Kumar, in the
various Hotels where he stayed
after escaping from Chandigarh
till his arrest as identified by PW-
95, Tejinder Pal Singh.

Ex.PW99/l :

Memo of identification vide which
PW-99 Chamkaur Singh and his father
Harnek Singh identified two legs and
skull of deceased assassin Dilawar
Singh .

Identification forms vide which
blood sample of Chamkaur Singh and
his father were taken for DNA
testing .

Ex.PW99/4 :

An application in the hands of

Ex.PW99/2 &
Ex.PW99/3

171

deceased Dilawar Singh as identified
by PW-99, Chamkaur Singh.

Ex.PW99/5
Ex.PW99/6

The application moved by PW-99
Chamkaur Singh and his father for
taking the delivery of the remnants
of the parts of the body of assassin
Dilawar Singh along with the
receipts .

Ex.PWlOO/1 :

Memo of recovery vide which
articles, Ex.P137 to Ex.P150
regarding the records of militant
out-fits maintained by Intelligence
being Punjab Police, was handed over
to the CBI including the poster
Ex.P150, vide which the assassin
Dilawar Singh was shown to be a
martyr for killing Beant Singh
published by Babbar Khalsa
International .

Ex.PWlOl/A

to Ex.PWlOl/D :

Signature of PW-101, Satwinder Singh
@ Simpy on the photo graphs of
accused Lakhwinder Singh, Dilawar

172

Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara,
Singh, Balwant Singh mark
Mark- PPPPP,Ex.DC/2, mark
mark UUU/2 .

EX.PW103/A
to EX.PW103/H,
EX.PW103/J,
EX.PW103/J/1 and
EX.PW103/J/2,
EX.PW103/K to
EX.PW103/M :

The proceedings relating to the

recording of confession of accused

Shamsher Singh @ Shera by PW-103,

Dinesh Kumar Sharma then

Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala

Court, House, New Delhi.

EX.PW105/1 to
EX.PW105/61

Sheets containing the specimen
writing and signatures of accused
Gurmeet Singh in Hindi, English &
Punjabi and also in numerals taken
in the presence of PW-105.

Sheets containing the specimen

writing and signatures of accused
Lakhwinder Singh in Hindi, English &
Punjabi and also in numerals taken

Gurmeet
00000,
QQQQQ,

EX.PW105/62
EX.PW105/62

173

in the

presence of PW-105.

EX.PW106/1 to
EX.PW106/19

EX.PW107/1

Sheets containing the specimen
writing and signatures of accused
Balwant Singh in English taken in
the presence of PW-105.

Statement of PW-107 u/s 164 Cr.P.C
recorded by PW-108.

EX.PW108/1 to
EX.PW108/6 :

Proceedings relating to recording
statement of witness Sapinder Singh
@ Pappu by PW-108, Paramjit Singh
then Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis
Hazari, New Delhi which is
Ex. PW107/1 .

Ex.PWlll/1 to
Ex.PWlll/4

Endorsement made by PW-111, Mohan
Lai regarding the identification of
the photographs Ex.PUUU/1, Ex.PSSSS,
Ex.PWlll/3 of accused Balwant Singh,
Dilawar Singh and Lakhwinder Singh

174

Ex.PWlll/1

to Ex.PWlll/64:

Sheets containing the specimen hand

writing and signatures of accused

Lakhwinder Singh taken in the

presence of PW-112, Chunni Lai

Bali .

EX.PW115/1 to
EX.PW115/14 :

Sheets containing the finger prints
of accused Lakhwinder Singh taken by
PW-115, SS Basoya, Jr . Scientific
Officer on the asking of the CBI .

EX.PW119/1 to
EX.PW119/94 :

Photographs of scene of occurrence
showing the details of the scene of
occurrence as well as photographs of
two legs and skull taken by PW-119,
Doctor Gopal Ji Mishra.

EX.PW120/1 to
EX.PW120/5 :

Sheets containing the hand writing
and signatures of accused Jagtar
Singh Tara taken in the presence of
PW-120 P.C.Thakur.

EX.PW121/1 and

175

EX.PW121/2 :

Disclosure statements of accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara suffered in the
presence of PW-121, Anil Kumar
Bhatia

EX.PW121/3 and
EX.PW121/4 :

Recovery memo showing the recovery
of sketch map, Ex.PW121/3, as per
disclosure statement of accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara in the presence
of PW-121 and PW-122.

EX.PW121/5 :

Pointing out memo vide which accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara identified the
STD booth located at Meerut road in
the presence of PW-121 and PW-122
and owner of the STD booth.

EX.PW122/1 and
EX.PW122/2 :

Photographs of Ram Singh @ Kuldip
Singh and Jagtar Singh identified by
PW-122 .

EX.PW123/1 to
EX.PW123/8 :

Seizure memos vide which the letters
written by Manjinder Singh to PW-
123, Harbinder Singh.

176

EX.PW124/A,
EX.PW124/A-1 &
EX.PW124/A-2 :

Register of Gurdwara Sheesh Gan j ,
New Delhi containing the entries
regarding the stay of Manjinder
Singh in the Gurdwara taken into
possession vide memo Ex . PW124/B, when
produced by PW-124 and PW-125.

EX.PW134/1
EX.PW134/2-A
to EX.PW134/2-C
and EX.PW134/3:

The register maintained by PW- 134

for running the STD PCO containing

the details of the calls made in the

month of October & November, 1995 by

accused Jagtar Singh Hawara as

proved by PW-134.

EX.PW160/1 :

The report of PW-160, Dr.RS.Verma,
of CFSL Chandigarh vide which all
the articles recovered from the room
of accused Gurmeet Singh, Ex.P-82 to
Ex.P-91,when examined in the
Laboratory were found containing the
traces of RDX.

EX.PW163/1 to
EX.PW163/3 :

177

Two FDRs receipts in the name of
accused Lakhwinder Singh which were
recovered from his house, when
searched by PW-164 P.C.Sharma,
Inspector, CBI in the presence of
PW-163 Raj Mohan and taken into
possession vide memo Ex.PW163/3.

EX.PW165/1 :

Report of Roop Singh, a Ballistic
Expert of CFSL, Delhi vide which
after examining 27 articles in
various Division of the Central
Forensic Laboratory, PW-165

concluded that a powerful improvised
explosive device had exploded at the
rear left side which is near the
dickey portion of CMS s Car bearing
registration no. PB-08-3469 at the
height of 3 feet above the ground
level and about 2 kg of hike
explosive RDX has been used along
with 1 to 2 kg missiles in the form
of iron bolls nut & bolts etc and
this explosion has been caused by a
human bomb who tied the explosive
belt around his waist.

EX.PW165/2 :

The report of PW-165, Roop Singh

178

Ballistics Expert after examining
the gunny bag, Ex.P-98 containing
RDX recovered from the

possession of accused Nasib Singh,
Ex.P99 who, vide his report
confirmed that this black sticky
material is RDX based high explosive
and the traces of the RDX were found
on 27 articles recovered from the
side of the blast.

EX.PW165/3

The report of PW-165 Ballistics
Expert regarding the examination
of belt Ex.P-97 and vide this report
PW-165 held that two Kg of RDX based
highly explosive can be filled in
the said cloth belt.

EX.PW165/4 :

Report of PW-165 Ballistics Expert
regarding examination of battery
Ex.P-153 recovered from the Car
bearing registration No.DBA-9598 and
vide this report PW-165 opined that
a battery similar to the 9 bolt
battery Ex.P-153 have been used in
causing the explosion on the date of
bomb blast.

179

EX.PW165/5 :

The report of PW-165, Ballistics
Expert, vide which, after examining
the pieces of the news paper
recovered from the room of accused
Gurmeet Singh, in the Ballistics
Division, PW-165 found traces of
blackish material and after chemical
instrumental analysis the presence
of the RDX based high explosive in
the stain available on the news
pieces Ex.P-88 were confirmed.

EX.PW165/6 :

Report of PW-165, Roop Singh
Ballistics Expert, regarding

examination of 25 parcels and vide
this report after examining articles
in the various laboratories of CFSL,
PW-165 concluded that presence of
RDX based high explosive as well
as the traces of PETN was detected
in the contents of 13 parcels which
included the metallic pieces, other
articles and the blood stained
clothes of the person died in the
blast .

EX.PW166/1 to

180

EX.PW166/29

Various proceedings and the report
of PW-166, Tilak Raj Nehra a document
expert of the CFSL, New Delhi who
after comparing the questioned and
standard writings attributed to
accused Lakhwinder Singh, Gurmeet
Singh, Balwant Singh, Jagtar Singh
Tara and Navjot Singh vide his
report, Ex. PW166/26 & Ex.PW166/28
gave his opinion as to the
authorship of these hand writings
and found that the questioned and
writings of all the accused
persons, when compared with the
admitted hand writings, was found to
be in the hands of one and the same
person .

EX.PW167/1 &
EX.PW167/2

Report of PW-167 Dr.Rajinder Singh,
a Senior Scientific Officer of CFSL
in the Physics Division, who
examined Battery Ex.P53 and 27
sealed articles and gave his opinion
about the same.

EX.PW178/1 to
EX.PW178/7

181

Report of PW-178, S.K.Chadha, a
Finger Print Expert of CFSL,

Chandigarh who visited the spot on
1.9.1995 and examined the scene of
crime as well as the Car bearing
registration No.DBA-9598, Ex.P76 and
took the various chance finger
prints from the said car and also
took the photographs of all those
finger prints and the articles and
after comparing the same with the
specimen thumb impression of accused
Lakhwinder Singh and Jagtar Singh
found the same to be similar with
the chance print as per reasons
given in his report.

EX.PW178/8 :

Report of PW-178, S.K.Chadha Finger
Print Expert, vide which after
taking the finger print of accused
Balwant Singh and compared the same
with guestioned finger print, he
concluded that those are similar
to the guestion finger print.

EX.PW179/5 :

The memo of recovery of various
articles which were taken into
possession from the scene of crime

182

on 1.9.1995 by PW-240,Nanha Ram in
the presence of PW-179, SI Ved
Parkash .

EX.PW191/1-A
to

EX.PW191/1-C :

The seizure memo vide which, on
3.9.1995 PW-231, A.K.Ohri recovered
incriminating articles from the
scene of crime including pieces of
human flesh human skull with hair,
shattered pieces and clothes some
pieces of body part of Car damaged
in blast.

EX.PW198/1
to

EX.PW198/4 :

Various seizure memos vide which PW-
198, Sunil Kumar Sharma, Inspector
C.B.I took into possession the
record of the STD booth and Hotels.

EX.PW201/1
to

Ex.PW201/3 :

The disclosure statements suffered
by accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
accused & Balwant Singh in the
presence of PW-201, S.V. Singh being
an independent witness.

Ex.PW201/4 :

183

The identification memo, vide which
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
identified room no. 203 of the Guest
House where he met Manjinder Singh
co-accused .

Ex.PW201/5 :

Identification memo, vide which
accused Balwant Singh, identified the
room of the Surya Guest House, where
he stayed and met Jagtar Singh
Hawara .

Ex.PW201/6 :

The identification memo, vide which
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
identified the STD PCO located in
Bhagat Singh market, New Delhi from
where he used to make calls to
Germany .

Ex.PW207/l :

Signature of Wadhawa Singh on the
fax message mark AAA, DDD, EEE, FFF
vide which PW-207 identified the
signature of Wadhawa Singh on the
documents .

Ex.PW210/l :

Seizure memo, vide which the Hotel

184

record of Hotel Prabhat Calcutta was
taken into possession from PW 210.

EX.PW211/1
and

Ex.PW211/2 :

Seizure memo, vide which the
registration record of the

Ambassador Car bearing

registration No. DBA 9598 was taken
into possession from the possession
of PW-211, Narinder Singh, Inspector
Transport Authority, New Delhi.

EX.PW212/1
to

Ex.PW212/3 :

Pointing out memo vide which accused
Balwant Singh identified the various
shops at Patiala in the presence of
PW-212 .

Ex.PW216/l :

Disclosure statement of accused
Jagtar Singh Tara suffered by him in
the presence of PW-216 consequent to
which he identified the house of PW-
32 S.K.Dutta vide memo Ex.PW38/8.

Ex.PW219/l :

Seizure memo, vide which the

service record file Ex.PW61/A of

deceased Dilawar Singh was taken

185

into possession from PW-219, HC
Nahar Singh.

EX.PW220/1
to

Ex.PW220/6 :

Proceedings relating to recovery of
record of Hotel City Lodge, Calcutta
including guest register Ex.PW220/l
and the entries made in this
register by the persons who stayed
in the Hotel.

Ex.PW223/l
to

Ex.PW223/4 :

Proceedings relating to recovery of
register of Hotel Kohinoor, Agra and
the entries made in the register
along with the identification of the
photo graphs of the accused persons.

EX.PW224/1 :

Proceedings relating to

identification of the photo graphs
mark WWWWW by PW-224 regarding the
stay of that person in their hotel.

Ex.PW-225/1
to

Ex.PW225/23 :

Sheets containing hand writing and
the signatures of accused Balwant

186

Singh taken in the presence of PW-
225 Pardeep Chand.

Ex.PW226/l
to

Ex.PW226/4 :

The proceedings relating to recovery
of records of the Hotel Classic
Calcutta including guest register
and the entries made therein as well
as identity of the photographs of
the persons stayed.

Ex.PW228/l :

Seizure memo vide which the scene of
crime was inspected & the
incriminating articles were lifted
on 2.9.1995 by the Investigating
Officer .

Ex.PW230/l
and

Ex.PW230/2 :

Proceedings relating to the recovery
of register of the Hotel
Kiran,Agra in the presence of PW-
230 .

Ex.PW231/l
to

Ex.PW231/5 :

The seizure memo vide which PW- 231
took into possession statement of
calls of the call register of STD
booth, Nagpur and other STD booths.

187

Ex.PW234/l :

Report of PW-234, S.L.Mukhia
document expert of the CFSL, Delhi
who after comparing the hand writing
and questioned documents with
specimen documents gave his opinion
as to theauthorship of these hand
writings in the hands of accused
Balwant Singh and other persons.

Proceedings relating to the
recording of the statement of the
witnesses Chamkaur Singh u/s 164
Cr.P.C, by PW-235, Sanjay Garg, then
Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari
New Delhi.

Ex.PW236/l

and
Ex.PW236/2

The reports of PW-236, C.M.Patel
Serological Expert of CFSL regarding
the presence of human blood on all
the incriminating articles recovered
from the spot .

EX.PW237/1
and

Ex.PW235/l
to

Ex.PW235/3

188

Ex.PW237/2

Search- cum- recovery
house of accused
prepared by PW-237.

Ex.PW239/l
to

Ex.PW239/10 :

The seizure memo and proceedings
conducted by PW-239, A.S.Kaul
relating to the investigation of the
case .

memo of the
Gurmeet Singh

Ex.PW240/l :

Inguest proceedings relating to the
dead body of Beant Singh.

Ex.PW240/2 :

The rough site plan of the scene of
crime and place of occurrence
prepared by PW-240, Nanha Ram
showing existing State of Affairs,
when he examined the scene of crime
immediately after the blast.

EX.PW241/1 :

Seizure memo regarding the service
record and leave application of
accused Lakhwinder Singh recovered
by PW-241, Surinder Pal Singh who
assisted the 10 .

189

EX.PW241/2 :

The file containing service record
of accused Lakhwinder Singh taken
into possession vide Ex.PW241/l.

EX.PW241/3

Arrest-cum-personal search memo of
accused Jagtar Singh Tara.

EX.PW241/5 :

Seizure memo for taking into
possession sealed packets from
Inspector Nanha Ram.

EX.PW242/1
and

Ex.PW242/2 :

The report of PW-242, M.A.Ali,
Document Expert of CFSL, Delhi who
after comparing the disputed hand
writing with specimen hand writing
of accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and
other accused persons and the
witnesses, gave his detailed opinion
with regard to that.

EX.PW244/1 :

Arrest memo of accused Navjot Singh

EX.PW244/2 :

Search memo of the house of accused

190

Navjot Singh showing the recovery of
diary Ex.PW244/3 containing writings
Ex.PW91/23 to Ex.PW91/25 and three
loose sheets Ex.PW91/26 to

Ex. PW91/30 .

EX.PW244/4 :

Search memo of the house of
absconding accused Jagroop Singh
showing the recovery of documents
including the identity card of
Inderjit Ex.PW109/l.

Original Identification card as well
as the photocopy of the same,
prepared by PW-245 while taking the
muscle pieces from the two legs and
the skull along with the photographs
of the same for D.N. A test.

EX.PW245/2
and

Ex.PW245/6 :

Original Identification card as well
as the photocopy of the same,
prepared by PW-245 while taking the
blood samples of Surjit Kaur mother
of deceased Dilawar Singh, along
with her photographs for the purpose

EX.PW245/1,
EX.PW245/5

191

of DNA test to establish the
identity of two legs and skull.

Ex.PW245/3 &
Ex.PW99/2 :

Original Identification card as well
as the photocopy of the same,
prepared by PW-245 while taking the
blood samples of Chamkaur Singh
along with his photographs brother
of the deceased Dilawar Singh for
the purpose of DNA test to establish
the identity of two legs and skull.

EX.PW245/4
and

Ex.PW99/3 :

Original Identification card as well
as the photo copy of the same,
prepared by PW-245 while taking the
blood samples of Harnek Singh

father of deceased Dilawar Singh,
along with his photographs for the
purpose of DNA test to establish the
identity of two legs and skull.

EX.PW245/7 :
to EX.PW245/13

Report along with enclosures of PW-
245 Dr.Lalji Singh, Director Centre
For Cellular Molecular Biology,

192

EX.PW247/1

EX.PW247/2

Hyderabad, who after conducting all
available tests for the comparison
and matching of DNA of Dilawar Singh
with other samples and vide report
Ex.PW245/7, PW-245, Dr. Lai Ji Mishra
concluded that as per the DNA
profile deceased Dilawar Singh was
the Progeny of aforesaid Harnek
Singh & Surjit Kaur and both the
legs and the skull are of one and
the same person.

Letter of Govt of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs transferring the
investigation of the present case to
the CBI.

The copy of the formal FIR which was
re-registered by the CBI.

EX.PW247/3
& EX.PW247/4

Disclosure statements of accused

Balwant Singh recorded by PW-247,
R.S.Punia .

EX.PW248/1

Forwarding letter of Ms.Balwinder

193

Kaur of CFSL, Chandigarh, vide which
a report regarding lifting of
various articles from the spot
Ex. PW248/2, was sent by Balwinder
Kaur to the Chief Investigating
Officer

Ex.PW248/2 :

Report of Balwinder Kaur of CFSL
Chandigarh regarding lifting of
various articles from the spot for
examination .

Ex.PW248/3 :

The site plan prepared by the
Architect on the direction of Chief
Investigating Officer showing the
position of the dead bodies and
existing state of affairs.

EX.PW248/4

Seizure memo of leave applications
of accused Lakhwinder Singh.

Ex.PW248/5 :

Sanction of Central Govt as per the
provision of Section 188 of the
Cr.P.C .

Ex.PW248/6

194

Sanction of Central Govt & U.T. Govt
for prosecution in respect of
prosecution for offences under
Explosive Substances Act.

Ex.PW248/7 :

Charge sheet submitted in the court
after the completion of

investigations .

56. B. In addition to the documentary evidence

mentioned above, the prosecution has relied upon
the photographs of accused persons as identified by
various witnesses during the investigations and
trial and the details of these photographs are as
follows : -

Mark PW244/A :

Photographs of accused Jagtat Singh
Tara (since proclaimed offender) as
identified by PW-244 R.S.Dhanker 1st
Chief Investigating Officer of the
case .

Mark-TTT
Mark TTT/1 &
Mark TTT/2 :

Group photographs of accused Gurmeet
Singh & Dilawar Singh along with
certain other persons identified by
PW-51 , Surinder Sharma

195

EX.PW113/1 :

Group photograph of accused Dilawar
Singh and Gurmeet Singh as
identified by PW-51, Surinder Kumar
along with his signatures on the
same .

Ex.PWlOl/A :

Photograph of accused Lucky as
identified by PW-101, Satwinder
Singh along with his signature on
the same.

Ex.PWlOl/C :

Photograph of accused Jagtar Singh
as identified by PW-101, Satwinder
Singh along with his signature on
the same.

Ex.PWlOl/B :

A group photograph of accused
Gurmeet Singh & Dilawar Singh as
identified by PW-101, Satwinder
Singh along with his signatures on
the same.

Ex.PWlll and
Mark HHHH

photographs of accused Lakhwinder
Singh as identified by PW-111, Mohan

196

Pal along with his signatures on the
same .

Ex.PW32/9 :

Photo graph of accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara as identified by PW-32,
S.K.Dutta along with his signatures
on the same.

Mark 239/A
to

Mark 239/D :

Group Photographs of marriage
ceremony including the photograph of
accused Balwant Singh as identified
by PW-239, A.G.Kaul along with his
signatures on the same.

Mark-QQQQQ :

photographs of accused Balwant Singh
as identified by PW-101, Satwinder
Singh along with his signatures on
the same.

Mark-SSS :

Photograph of accused Gurmeet Singh
as identified by PW-51, Surinder
Sharma along with his signatures on
the same.

Mark TTTTT

197

Mark VWW

Photographs of accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara as identified by PW-210 Ajay
Gupta & PW-220, Anwar Khan along
with their signatures on the same.

Mark SSSS :

Photograph of accused assassin
Dilawar Singh as identified by PW-
111, Mohan Lai along with his
signatures on the same.

5 6.C. LIST OF MATERIAL INCRIMINATING
ARTICLES AND OBJECTS WHICH HAVE BEEN RELIED
UPON BY THE PROSECUTION TO LINK THE ACCUSED
PERSONS WITH THE CONSPIRACY.

ARTICLES: NATURE OF ARTICLES

Ex.P-1 to Ex.P36:

Parcels containing clothes and the
belongings of the deceased persons
including the metallic and glass
pieces recovered from the dead
bodies .

Ex.P37 to Ex.P44:

Parcels containing the belongings of
the deceased Chief Minister Beant
Singh, Kara of Sardar Beant Singh,

198

Denture of Sardar Beant Singh,
suture of Sardar Beant Singh.

Ex.P45 to
Ex. P4 9 :

Parcels containing the clothes and
belongings of deceased Dr. Anil

Duggal as well as the glass and
metallic pieces removed from his
dead body .

Ex.P50 to Ex.P53:

Parcels containing shoe removed from
one of the two legs as well as
its wrapper the epidermal cast and
the soul of the right foot and left
foot .

Ex.P54 to Ex.P61:

Parcels containing the partly burnt
shoe right side belt portion of the
pant, shirt , undergarment and the
parcel containing metallic pieces
removed from the dead body of
deceased Yash Pal Bali.

Ex.P62 to Ex.P70:

Packet containing khaki shirt, sky
shirt, banyan, red kacha,belt with

199

PAP batch, portion of the khaki
pant, left shoe partially burnt, khaki
socks and plastic jar removed from
the dead body of deceased Lachman
Dass at the time of postmortem
examination .

Ex.P70 to Ex.P75:

Parcel containing the portion
material wrapped in a cloth and
clothes of deceased Ranjodh Singh
removed at the time of his
postmortem examination.

Ex.P76

The Car bearing registration No . DBA-
9598 used by the accused persons in
the commission of the crime.

Ex.P77

Scooter No . PB-11-1 955 which was sold
by Shri Kamalpreet Singh to Assassin
Dilawar Singh.

Ex.P78

Brief case used as medicine bag by
Dr . Duggal .

Ex.P79

Scooter bearing registration No. DL-

200

5-SF-0318

Ex.P80

Scooter No. PCP 2085 owned by
accused Lakhwinder Singh which has
been used by him in the commission
of the crime.

Ex.P81

Car bearing registration No . CH-01-G-
1035 one of the car which was
parked near the VIP gate when the
explosion took place.

Ex.P82

Envelope containing the seals of
CFSL .

Ex.P83

Envelope containing the seals of CBI

bearing the signatures of PW-68,
Puran Chand.

Ex. P84

Polythene bag in which the card
board was packed.

Ex.P85

Cover in which the card board was
covered .

201

Card board

Three pieces of card board.
Three pieces of news paper.

Envelope containing the sample
seals of CFSL.

Envelope containing the sample seals
of CBI also having the signature
of PW-68.

Phial containing
recovered from the
Gurmeet Singh.

black granules
room of accused

Polythene bag of Ferozi

Helmet recovered along with Scooter

No. PB-11-1955 from Pritam Cycle

Stand, Patiala in the presence of
PW 72 .

202

Ex.P95

The envelope containing the belt
recovered from the Scooter.

Ex. P96

The envelope in which the belt was
sealed

Ex.P97

The green colour belt recovered from
the dickey of the Scooter No. PB-11-
1955

Ex.P98

The cloth bag in which the belt was
sealed

Ex.P99 to
EX.P118

Books, appointment letter, Diary,
application form bearing the
signature of Dilawar Singh and five
news paper of ' Aj Di Awaz ' of

different dates, one small piece of
paper receipt dt . 31. 8. 1995 recovered
from the room of accused Balwant
Singh when searched on 5.9.1995 in
the presence of PW 83.

EX.P118 to
EX.P120

203

Blank proforma, Punjabi book title
Saheed Bhagat Singh and photo graph
of Dilawar Singh which were
recovered from the room of Dilawar
Singh when searched in PW 85
G. D.Achint .

EX.P121 to
EX.P136

Letters and papers along with the
khaki uniform recovered from the
toilet of the house of Jaswant
Singh, Foster father of accused
Balwant Singh in the presence of
PW-8 8, Budh Ram Garg.

EX.P137 to
EX.P150

Copy of the constitution magazines
and the statement issued by B.K.I
in connection with this case along
with the published after the murder
of Beant Singh proclaiming the
deceased Dilawar Singh as Martyr

Ex.P-151 :

Sealed envelope containing the seals
of the CFSL in which dry cell
battery was packed after inspection
by CFSL.

EX.P152 :

204

The envelope in which the
cell was recovered by the
Officer .

battery
recovery

EX.P153

EX.P154

EX.P155

EX.P156

EX.P157

EX.P158

Dry Cell battery of 9 volt

A tag of CFSL bearing the signature
of PW-161, Dr.Rajinder Singh

Rear view Mirror of Car no. DBA-9598

The cloth bag in which the mirror
was sealed .

A card board cartoon in which the
parcel was again sealed.

Collective parcel containing the
burnt pieces of cloth, debris, iron
pieces and various other articles of
the dead persons, taken into
possession from the place of
occurrence on 1.9.1995

205

White pieces of cloth taken into
possession from the spot.

Partly burnt Marked badges lifted
from the place of occurrence by PW-
179.

Bag containing two cells and other
articles

The bag containing the burnt uniform
of National Security Guards.

Parcel containing the lense (Glass)
with a mark of Rayban gogals.

Parcel containing the pieces of wall
clock .

Parcel containing the pieces of iron
and one red & blue cloth.

206

EX.P167

EX.P168

EX.P169

EX.P170

EX.P171

EX.P172

EX.P173

Parcel containing the burnt pieces
of coal.

The bag containing burnt pieces of
the uniform of Haryana Police.

The bag containing ashes collected
from the spot of blast.

The bag containing burnt pieces of
clothes .

Bag containing broken frame of
spectacles .

The Bag containing one iron piece
along with pieces of clothes.

The bag containing burnt plastic
pieces .

The bag containing burnt material

207

The bag containing pieces of metal.

The bag containing burnt pieces of
metal pieces.

The bag containing burnt pieces of
cloth .

The bag containing cap of Khaki
colour with badge.

The bag containing a burnt piece of
plastic .

The bag containing burnt pieces of
cloth .

The bag containing one soap.

The bag containing broken pieces of
the glass of spectacles.

208

EX.P183

EX.P184

EX.P185

EX.P186 to
EX.P188

EX.P189

EX.P190

Ex. PI 91 to
EX.P195

The bag containing one empty sell of
battery along with two pieces.

The bag containing one wrist watch
with broken glass with a time
stopped at 5.12.

Bag containing one
one iron piece
condition .

wire along with
in a melted

Three pieces of damaged car bearing
registration No. PB-08-3469.

Number plate along with the tail
light of car bearing no . PB-08-3469 .

Plastic container containing blood
sample collected from the scene of
occurrence collectively exhibited as
Ex. P190 .

Sweepings five in numbers obtained

209

from the outer portion of Car no.PB-
08-3469.

EX.P196

Identity card of deceased ASI
Mukhtiar Singh.

EX.P197 :

One blood stained copy containing
the emblem of Haryana Police.

Ex. PI 98 -A

to EX.P199-B :

Pieces of Car no. PB-08-3469

EX.P199

A blood soaked pieces of cloth
recovered from the scene of the
occurrence collectively sealed in
one bundle.

Ex.P200

One blood stained white printed
shirt .

Ex.P201

One khaki blood stained turban.

Ex.P202/l
to Ex.P202/6

Three live cartridges of different
bores along with the bullets heads.

210

Ex.P203/l
to Ex.P203/6

One khaki turban, one light blue
turban, one pink and one white
turban taken from the scene of
occurrence .

EX.P204

Bunch of keys recovered from Car No
DBA-9598 .

Ex.P205

Identity card of deceased Dhanwant
Singh recovered during the

postmortem examination.

Ex.P206

Identity card of deceased Kesar
recovered during the postmortem
examination .

EX.P207

Identity card of Mukhtiar Singh
deceased recovered during the

postmortem examination.

Ex.P208

Identity card of deceased Balbir
Singh, MLA recovered during the
postmortem examination.

211

Ex.P209

Belongings of deceased Kultar Singh
son of Shaki Singh handed over at
the time of post mortem examination.

Ex.P210

Voter identity metallic pellets
recovered from the dead body of
Swaran Singh son of Hajura Singh
during the postmortem examination.

Ex.P211 :

Packet containing personal

belongings recovered from the dead
body of Swaran Singh s/o Hazura
Singh during the postmortem
examination .

Ex.P212 :

Packet Containing metallic and glass
pieces recovered from the dead body
of Yash Pal Bali s/o Hari Ram during
the postmortem examination.

Ex.P213

Packet containing clothes recovered
from the dead body of deceased Yash
Pal Bali during the postmortem
examination .

212

EX.P214

Packet containing personal

belongings like shoes, pant, kachha
(under-wear ) etc of deceased Ranjodh
Singh during his postmortem
examination .

EX.P215

Packet containing personal
belongings recovered from the dead
body of deceased Jagdish s/o Teja
during his postmortem examination.

Ex.P216

Packet containing the personal
belongings of deceased Lachman Dass
s/o Ram Lai recovered during the
postmortem examination.

EX.P217

Packet containing the personal
belongings recovered from the dead
body of deceased Balbir Singh

during the postmortem examination.

Ex.P218

Packet containing personal

belongings recovered from the dead
body of deceased shamsher Singh

213

during the postmortem examination.

Ex.P219

Packet containing glass and foreign
material recovered from the dead
body of Mukhtiar Singh s/o Pal
Singh .

57. In addition to the above discussed

evidence of the prosecution, during the defence
evidence, the prosecution has also relied upon the
following documents which were put to the defence
witnesses .

Ex.PX/1 :

Copy of the Memo of recovery dated
18. 9.1995.

Ex.PX/2 :

Containing 29 pages, copies of the
malkhana register of Police Station,
CBI of New Delhi.

Ex.PX/3 :

Cutting of the News paper The
Tribune dt. 27. 9.1995 relating to
the case.

EX.PX3-A &
Ex.PX/4 :

214

Cuttings of the news items of the
Hindustan Times dated 17.9.1995
relating to the case in hand.

Ex.PX/5 to
Ex.PX/9 :

Cutting of the news paper The Indian
Express dt. 7. 9. 1995, 8.9.1995 and
9.9.1995.

STATEMENTS OF ALL THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION
313 Cr.P.C. ALONGWITH THEIR EXPLIANATION
AND DEFENCE VERSION.

58. After conclusion of the evidence of the
prosecution, all the accused persons facing trial
in this case, were examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C one by one, and each and every incriminating
circumstances, brought by the prosecution, against
each and every accused persons, were put to each
of the accused persons separately, as the entire
case of the prosecution is based on the theory that
as per a well laid conspiracy, all the accused
person committed this crime.

59. First of all, accused Balwant Singh was
examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and when each and every
circumstance of prosecution was put to him,
starting with the factum of conspiracy till its
execution including the role played by each and

215

every co-accused of this accused, he pleaded
ignorance about some facts and admitted some facts
and ultimately, he was called upon to explain that
in view of the evidence of the prosecution, he
along with his co accused persons including the
persons declared as proclaimed offender, hatched
conspiracy to kill Sardar Beant Singh, then Chief
Minister of Punjab

60. In pursuance of that, deceased assassin,
Dilawar Singh acted as human bomb and exploded
himself near the Car of the Chief Minister on
31.8.1995 at about 5.10 p.m, at the Porch of VIP
Gate of Punjab & Haryana Civil Secretariat,
Chandigarh leading to death of Sardar Beant Singh
along with 16 other persons and left a number of
persons as injured. In reply to this, he submitted
a written explanation which is exhibited as
Ex.D(BS)/A running into four pages. He also stated
that he strapped a belt bomb around the waist of
deceased Bhai Dilawar Singh and killed Beant Singh
and held deceased Dilawar Singh to achieve his goal
and he did so for the cause of independence of his
brotherhood as Beant Singh was killer of thousands
of innocent Sikhs and starting claiming himself to
be incarnation of Guru Gobind Singh and also
proclaimed himself Avtar of Lord Rama.

61. Even in his written explanation
Ex.D(BS)/A, he reiterated the above facts saying

216

that when the Sikh community started 'Dharam Yudh
Morcha' on the direction of Shri Akal Takht Sahib
through political and religious organization, it
was not liked and tolerated by the Congress Govt at
the Centre and in the month of June, 1994, the
Central Govt attacked Shri Harmandir Sahib and Shri
Akal Takht Sahib and damaged the building and
killed so many innocent persons and played with the
religious feelings of Sikh community. To take the
revenge two Sikh youngmen killed Smt. Indira Gandhi,
then Prime Minister of India and after her death,
the Congress led Indian Govt indulged in hallow
caste in Delhi and other places in the country and
again innocent Sikh persons were killed in
thousands but no action was taken against any of
the guilty. After that, the Congress Govt gave a
free hand to its agencies and the Police in Punjab
and S.Beant Singh was made Chief Minister of Punjab
against democratic procedure by bogus voting.
S.Beant Singh, Chief Minister of Punjab indulged in
killing innocent Sikhs on the asking of the Central
Govt and the dead bodies of so many Sikh persons
were cremated claiming the same to be unclaimed.
After killing so many innocent persons, Sardar
Beant Singh started claiming himself as the
messenger of peace and incarnation of Guru Gobind
Singh and also proclaimed himself Avtar of Lord
Rama. When all this crossed the limit and was not
tolerated by them, they planned to kill Beant
Singh .

217

62. He further proclaimed that on 31.8.1995,
deceased Bhai Dilawar Singh wrapped a bomb on his
waist and collided with Beant Singh and killed him.
He further explained that he was also involved in
the killing of Beant Singh by deceased Dilawar
Singh and he has no remorse for doing this.
However, as far as the remaining persons implicated
by the CBI, they have no role and have been falsely
implicated. With this explanation, he alleged that
he does not believe in the Constitution of India
and the system.

63. Even on 18.3.2006, when the recording of
statement of accused Balwant Singh was started and
when first question was put to him, he read out a
four pages writing which has been marked as A-l to
A- 4 and made part of the record. It was later
on exhibited as Ex.D(BS)/A.

64. Even prior to that on 24.12.97 and
24.1.1998, accused Balwant Singh filed a written
application admitting the facts, mentioned above.
Even during the recording of the statement of the
witnesses, Raju Tamir Haran (PW 60) one of the
witnesses, during his cross examination, he again
gave a writing Ex. CD/1 admitting the killing of
Sardar Beant Singh.

65. Not even this, when PW-95, Tejinder Singh,

218

with whom the accused Balwant Singh stayed at
Nagpur and before whom, he disclosed all the
details leading to this conspiracy, stated so on
oath accused Balwant Singh while cross examining
him alleged that whatever has been stated by this
witness is correct except gua accused Gurmit Singh.
This stand of accused Balwant Singh further shows
that he has confessed the killing of Beant singh
almost the manner alleged by prosecution.

66. Even during the course of arguments, he
submitted a writing, which was made part of record
on 20.4.2007, taking the same stand.

67. Similarly, when all the remaining accused
persons were examined one by one, and each and
every piece of incriminating evidence was put to
them and they were also confronted with the crux of
the evidence and their link, with this
assassination, all of them denied the entire case
of the prosecution and alleged that they have been
falsely implicated by the Central Bureau
Investigation .

68. When the statement of accused Gurmeet
Singh was completed u/s 313 Cr.P.C, he was called
upon to explain the reasons and circumstances, in
which, he was arrested and link with this case, he
replied that he is innocent and has been falsely
implicated only because of the fact that he is

219

neighbour of Dilawar Singh and he was arrested by
the CBI and forced to become a witness but when he
refused to oblige the CBI, he was falsely
implicated in this case. He also give his
explanation in writing Ex.D(GS) in which also
he reiterated this fact and alleged that he has
been falsely implicated.

69. In the same manner, when statement of the

accused Navjot Singh under Section 313 Cr.P.C was
completed and he was called upon to explain, why he
has been arrested and link with this case, he
replied that he is innocent and falsely implicated.
On 17.9.1995, at about 8.00 p.m, the raiding party
of the Punjab Police and the CBI forcibly entered
into his house and they forcibly took away him and
his father including his grand father and they also
took away cash, gold ornaments and other valuable
from his house after keeping them in illegal
custody. He was falsely implicated in a sedition
case in Delhi and was later on implicated in this
case on the asking of their neighbour, Harjinder
Singh Gill, with whom his family is having a
dispute about the payment of cost of the common
wall. With these facts, he alleged that on
31.8.1995, he was present on his duties at Ranbaxy
till 18:48 hours as is clear from Ex.PEEEEE and has
been falsely implicated in this case without there
being any act of omission and commission on his
part .

220

70. In the same manner, when statement of the
accused Shamsher Singh under Section 313 Cr.P.C
was completed, he explained that he is falsely
implicated and in his written explanation in
Punjabi in this regard, which is Ex.D-SS, he
alleged that he was arrested on 29.9.1995, and was
tortured by the Punjab Police and the CBI and was
forced to make disclosure statement before a
Magistrate at Delhi admitting his involvement but
he never made any disclosure statement before the
Magistrate and his statement recorded in Hindi was
never read over or explained to him as he does not
know Hindi or write Hindi. He further alleged that
he is not a resident of Ukasi Jattan. On the other
hand he is resident of Village Kamalpur. With this
explanation, he also pleaded that he has been
falsely implicated.

71. In the same manner, when statement of the
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara under Section 313
Cr.P.C was completed, and he alleged that he is
innocent and falsely implicated and as per his
written explanation in this regard Ex.D(JSH ), he
justified the killing of Beant Singh but alleged
that he has no concern with his killing and has
been falsely implicated. He again alleged that he
is not member of any Terrorist Organization. On the
other hand, he is member of religious organization
known as Akhand Kirtani Jatha which is working for

221

perpetuating teaching
alleged that he has
accused persons facing

of Sikh religion. He
no concern with any-
trial in this case.

further
of the

72. In the same manner when statement of the

accused Lakhwinder Singh under Section 313 Cr.P.C
was completed, he alleged that he has been falsely
implicated and he further alleged that before
31.8.1995, he was working as driver with Sant Ram
Singla, a Member of Parliament and after making a
formal entry in the Daily Diary Register kept in
his deptt i.e Security Wing, he went to Delhi with
Sant Ram Singla. On 1.9.1995, he came to Chandigarh
to get his salary and received the same from Mini
Secretariat but after that, he was arrested by the
Police and falsely implicated in this case. He
further alleged that at the time of alleged
occurrence of paint of car and other facts alleged
against him and when this blast took place he was
with Sant Ram Singla, Member of Parliament at Delhi
but despite this, he has been implicated falsely
being a neighbourer of deceased Dilawar Singh. He
further alleged that the police has tried to
manipulate his finger prints on the rear view
mirror of the alleged car and as such, he is
falsely implicated. He further alleged that he was
not knowing any of the accused persons before
coming to Jail. With these averments, he reiterated
that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

222

73. In the same manner, when statement of the
accused Nasib Singh under Section 313 Cr.P.C
was completed, he alleged that he is innocent and
falsely implicated in this case and further
explained that his daughter, Harpreet Kaur was
being falsely implicated by the CBI on the
allegations that she is conspirator in this case.
However, under the pressure of Panchayat and the
respectables of the Village, the CBI could not do
so and he was arrested by the Punjab Police and
implicated falsely in this case. He also alleged
that he was not knowing any of the accused of this
trial till the time of his arrest. The RDX has been
planted on him whereas no recovery was made from
his house and as such, he alleged that he has been
falsely implicated in this case.

74. It will also be apposite to mention here
that accused Jagtar Singh @ Tara was also facing
trial along with present accused persons and till
the year 2004, the prosecution witnesses were
examined in his presence including the making of
confession statement, Ex.PW86/6 recorded by PW-86,
Balbir Singh, then Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI
Patiala and during the pendency of the trial
against Jagtar Singh Tara, he filed an application
on 6.5.1999, wherein he retracted from his
confessional statement recorded by PW-86 but he
further alleged that as disclosed by him, earlier
he was also with deceased Dilawar Singh to kill

223

Beant Singh. Similarly, even prior to 2.9.1998, he
admitted that he was present with Dilawar Singh
while killing Beant Singh and he has no remorse for
the same.

75. Although, on completion of statements of

all the accused persons under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C, accused Balwant Singh had not opted for
any defence, all the remaining accused persons
opted for defence evidence and in order to prove
their defence stories, they examined as many as 26
following witnesses :-

DW-1, Pankaj Sharma, Junior Clerk who
has brought the original News Paper The
Tribune for the dates 1.9.1995, 3.9.1995,
28.1.1996, 21.2.1996, 27.4.2003

regarding the news of assassination of
Sardar Beant Singh and he deposed
accordingly .

DW-2 , Prabhjot Paul Singh, Bureau
Chief in The Tribune, Chandigarh who has
deposed that the news, Ex.DWl/3 was
published after his reporting and story
which was prepared by him after talking
to the concerned persons and authorities.

DW-3, R.S.Bajwa (retd Lt.Col) is the
neighbour of Tirlok Singh father of

224

accused Navjot Singh, who has deposed
that there was dispute between Mr. Gill
and Tirlok Singh regarding payment for
the cost of the common wall of the house
of Tirlok Singh. This witness has further
deposed that on 17.9.1995, at about
7/8.00 p.m., when he was present in the
lawn of his house, at that time, 60-70
persons had come in front of house of
Tirlok Singh and took away Tirlok Singh,
his wife, his son and his father and
brother leaving behind only his daughter.

DW-4 , Mohkam Singh has deposed

that when he was in judicial lock up,
accused Navjot Singh met him in the
judicial lock-up at Delhi for three
occasions. He was brought by two police
officials as he was unable to walk
himself with swollen eyes. This witness
further deposed that accused Navjot Singh
disclosed him that the police has
implicated him in a criminal case of
Delhi for pressurizing him to become a
witness relating to assassination of
Beant Singh. This witness further stated
that on this he said to accused Navjot
Singh if he knows anything about the case
then he must become a witness. On this,
accused Navjot Singh stated that he does

225

not know
assassination
for the same.

anything about that
or the person responsible

DW-5, Tirlok Singh, father of
accused Navjot Singh, deposed that his
son Navjot Singh has been falsely
implicated by the CBI on the asking of
their neighbour H.S.Gill, who was having
enmity with them and he also deposed
about the complaints and the
representations made by him after
registration of case against his son.

DW-6, Dr. Daisy Sahini, who is

working as Additional Professor, Deptt of
Anatomy, P.G.I Chandigarh deposed that no
register regarding examination of medical
legal work was being maintained in their
deptt .

DW-7, Dr .R.M.Singh, SMO General
Hospital, Sector 26 Chandigarh was
summoned by the defence in order to show
that separate mortuary register is being
maintained in the General Hospital. This
witness accordingly deposed that he has
brought the mortuary register for the
relevant period in this case which is
Ex.D7 and further deposed that as and

226

when a dead body is brought in the
mortuary for post mortem examination, the
particulars of the same are entered in
this register for conducting the post
mortem examination and apart from this,
no other register is being maintained for
receiving the dead bodies in the
mortuary .

DW-8, Sunil Arora, Assistant
Registrar, National Human Rights

Commission, New Delhi has brought the
concerned file relating to the complaints
filed by Tirlok Singh Chhabra which was
registered in their office as file
no . 27/7/95-LD and this witness deposed
accordingly .

DW-9, Prahlad Singh, Malkhana
Incharge of Anti Corruption Burearu
(CBI), Chandigarh was examined to prove
the entries of case property of this case
in the said register. This witness
accordingly deposed that all the seizures
and case property relating to all the
case which are tried by the CBI,
Chandigarh including the cases relating
to SIU-XV Chandigarh are entered and kept
at Chandigarh. However, if the case
property of any other branch is kept at

227

Chandigarh temporarily, no entry of the
same is being made in the said register.
He also deposed that the case relating to
Beant Singh assassination was

investigated by the Delhi Branch and as
such, no entry regarding depositing or
despatch of any case property relating to
this case has been entered. In cross
examination, he admitted that as per his
information, the case property relating
to this case was temporarily deposited in
malkhana at Chandigarh along with the
seizure memos.

DW-10, M.S.Kalania, Under Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi was
summoned with some record but he moved an
application claiming privilege of that
record and that application of the Home
Ministry was allowed and this witness was
discharge accordingly.

DW-11, Pankaj Kalra, Cashier, CBI
Head Office, New Delhi who has brought the
summoned record i.e the original record
relating to the tour programme of Shri
M.L.Sharma, then Joint Director along
with TA bills from the period of 1.9.1995
to 31.12.1995 and this witness deposed
accordingly .

228

DW-12, S.K.Singh, who is posted as
S . P (Security) , Punjab Sector 9,

Chandigarh has brought the summoned
record i.e the daily diary register for
the month of April, 1995 to 1.9.1995.
This witness further deposed that
Lakhwinder Singh, who was driver in the
MT department, proceeded on leave for two
days, vide DDR No. 24 dt. 11. 4. 1995 at 7.40
a.m and on 11.7.1995, C. Lakhwinder Singh
No. 409 was deputed to report to Shri
Surinder Singla, then Member of
Parliament as driver and this witness
further deposed accordingly.

DW-13, S.K.Jain, Assistant, who has
been authorized by the Presidents
Secretariat to depose in this case and
this witness further deposed that they
have destroyed all the records after five
years of its receipts or maintenance.

DW-14, S.R.Thakur, Inspector, CBI who
has brought the summoned record i.e
receipts register maintained in CJO
Complex and North Block for the period of
4.1.1996 to 9.12.1996. This witness
further deposed that as per the record no
complaint of Tirlok Singh Chhabra

229

resident of SAS Nagar, was received
either in the month of April, 1996 or in
the month of July, August, 1996.

DW-15, B. A. Khan, Deputy Secretary,
who has deposed that he has not brought
the summoned record of file

No.S/23/33/35/OONCM dt. 16. 6.2000 as the
same has been weeded out and he deposed
accordingly .

DW-16, Gurjit Singh, Clerk who has
brought the news paper dated 21.2.1996,
which was published by Sadhu Singh
Hamdard Trust Jalandhar and he deposed
accordingly .

DW-17, Paramjit Kaur, w/o late
Jaswant Singh Khalra and she deposed that
her husband late Shri Jaswant Singh
Khalra was the General Secretary of Human
Rights Wing of Siromani Akali Dal and he
used to raise voice as & when any human
rights violation were done either by the
Govt or its instrumentalities. Even after
the incident of 1984 in the Golden
Temple, her husband agitated the
discrimination being purported against
the Sikh community. In the year 1992,
when deceased Beant Singh became Chief

230

Minister of Punjab, he also started
working against the Sikh Community and
did lot of atrocities towards the Sikh
community including fake encounters and
at that time, her husband also raised
voice against the atrocities of Beant
Singh and prepared a report regarding
illegal killings of Sikhs during his
tenure and having been cremated them as
unclaimed bodies at different places in
Punjab and in this manner, she tried to
project that deceased Beant Singh was not
working for the Sikh community and she
and her husband were harassed by Beant
Singh and after the death of Beant Singh,
the atrocities of Sikh community
including false encounters and other
atrocities were stopped and came to an
end to a large extent.

DW-18, Harish Chander Lower Division
Clerk of Record Room office of the
CBI,New Delhi was summoned with receipt
and dispatch register for the period
1.8.1995 to 31.3.1996 of the office of
the CBI-SCR/II,New Delhi but he deposed
that this record has been destroyed as
per the certificate, Ex.DW18/B.

DW-19, Hira Singh, Inspector CBI was

231

summoned with the record of malkhana of
the CBI and he accordingly deposed about
the depositing of the case property
relating to this case in his malkhana as
per the different entries.

DW-20, P.K.Ghosh, being a member of
the Executing committee of Sahirdaya
Group Society, Rohtak Road, Delhi was
summoned with the visiting register
maintained by the society for the period
August and September, 1995. But he
deposed that no such register was being
maintained at the relevant time.

DW-21, Joginder Singh, Editor of the
Spokesman a monthly Punjabi Magazine
deposed about the publishing of some
reports in his Magazine relating to this
case and proved it accordingly.

DW-22, Sanjay Mehta, Personal
Executive, Hindustan Times was summoned
to prove the copies of the news paper
dt. 2. 9. 1995 and he accordingly proved the
copyof the News paper as Ex.DW22/D.

DW-23, Bipan Pabbi, Resident Editor
of Indian Express, Chandigarh was also
summoned to prove the copies of the

232

Indian News Paper from 1st September to

5th September and dated 8.2.1996 and he

accordingly proved these copies as
EX.DW23/A to EX.DW23/C.

DW-24, Shri D . B . S . Shastri, Section
Officer of Central for Cellular or
Molecular Biology was summoned to bring
the receipt and despatch register which
was being maintained in DNA testing
Laboratory during the period September,
1995 but he deposed that no
despatch/receipt register was being
maintained in DNA testing Laboratory
during the period in guestion.

DW-25, Ashok Kumar Walia, Inspector,
Food & Supply, Rajpura was summoned to
bring the record of the year 1994
relating to the ration card issued in the
name of accused Shamsher Singh but he
deposed that the record of 1994 has been
destroyed but proved the original ration
card Ex.DW25/A being issued after proper
verification containing the true
particulars .

DW26, HC Gurmail Singh, complaint
Clerk of SSP Ropar brought the receipt
register of SSP Ropar with effect from

233

1.5.1995 onwards and deposed that no
application or complaint has been
received in SSP Office from Tarlok Singh,
resident of house no. 889, Sector 60,
Mohali .

76. In addition to the defence evidence led

above, the accused persons also relied upon the
following documents, which were put to the
prosecution witnesses during their statement at
different times.

Ex.D-1 Copy of the application moved by SI

Gamdoor Singh for the postmortem of
two legs and head skull.

Ex.D-2 Identification report-cum-memo dated

5.9.1995 prepared by Inspector
A.K.Chanda for the identification of
two legs and the skull by Harnek
Singh & Chamkaur Singh, father and
brother of deceased Dilawar Singh
which was later on exhibited as

Ex.DW99/l .

Ex.D-3 Report of Doctor Pardeep Sharma

relating to the examination of
Varinder Rana .

Ex.D-4 Original application moved by

234

Bhupinder Singh, SP, CBI for the
release of two legs and the skull to
Harnek Singh father of deceased
Dilawar Singh.

Ex.D-5 Original application moved by ML

Sharma, Joint Director of CBI with
Director, P.G.I Chandigarh for the
report as to the two legs and skull
and other articles.

Ex.D-6 List of MLRs relating to the injured

of the bomb blast.

Ex.D-7 Postmortem register of P.G.I

Chandigarh .

Ex.D-8 Copies of the DDRs

EX.D8/A &

EX.D8/B

Ex.D-9 Original affidavit of Harjit Singh,

s/o Bhagwan Singh which is also
exhibited as Ex.PW241/4

77. In addition to the above mentioned

documentary evidence, accused Navjot Singh also
relied upon the following additional documents :

Ex.DX/1 Certified copy of judgment

dated 17.5.2002 of Shri C.L.Mohal,
then Chief Judicial Magistrate,

235

Chandigarh .

Ex.DX/2 Certified copy of order

dated 8.5.1995.

Ex.DX/3 Certified copy of order of Shri

Baldev Singh, Additional Sessions
Judge, Chandigarh dated 29.5.1995 .

Ex.DX/4 Certified copy of writ petition

no. 1032/1995 filed by accused Navjot
Singh .

Ex.DX/5 Certified copy of order dated

16.10.1995 passed in criminal writ
petition no. 1032/95.

Ex.DX/6 Certified copy of order dated

5.4.2002 passed by Hon'ble High Court
in Criminal Misc .No . 7489-M of 2002

Ex.DX/7 Copy of order dated 10.2.2000

passed by Punjab State, Human Rights
Commission .

Ex.DX/8 Certified copy of order dated

17.12.2002 passed by the Human
Rights Commission.

Ex.DH Copy of the statement of Shri Rajesh

236

Malhotra s/o Bhagwan Dass recorded
by AG Kaul, Inspector, CBI .

Ex.PW237/D Copy of statement of C.Kuljit Singh
recorded by A.K.Ohri, Inspector,
CBI .

Ex.DBB Copy of the statement of PW

Tirlochan Singh son of Kartar Singh
recorded by Shri R.S.Dhankar.

Ex.DCC Copy of the statement of PW Subhash

Kumar Dutta recorded by G.N.Gupta,
DSP, CBI.

Ex.DY Copy of statement of PW Dilbagh

Singh recorded by RS . Dhankar on
25.10.1995

Ex.DZ Copy of the statement of Mohan Raj

Shekher recorded by RS. Dhankar, DSP,
CBI on 4.10.1995.

Ex.DZ/1 Copy of the statement of PW Revathi

Raj Shekhar, recorded by RS.Punia,
DSP on 4 . 9 .1995 .

78. I have heard Shri S.K.Saxena, Special

Public Prosecutor for the CBI, assisted by Shri
R.K.Handa and Shri Rajan Malhotra, Special Public

237

Prosecutors for the CBI and Shri D.S. Chimney and
Shri A.S.Chahal Advocates for all the accused
persons, who were also assisted by Shri R.C.Sharma
and Shri S.S.Bawa Advocates, except accused Balwant
Singh at length. I have also heard the case put
forward by the accused Balwant Singh in person.
Besides this, the entire record of the prosecution
including oral and documentary evidence, was also
perused with the assistance of both the parties.

PROSECUTION VERSION

79. Opening its case, Sh. S .N. Saxena, learned

Special Public Prosecutor, assisted by Sh.R.K.Handa
Special Public Prosecutor and Sh.Rajan Malhotra
Advocate for the CBI argued that keeping in view
the stand taken by one of the accused Balwant
Singh, it is proved on the file that on 31.8.1995,
deceased assassin Dilawar Singh along with accused
Balwant Singh killed S.Beant Singh, then Chief
Minister, Punjab, when assassin Dilawar Singh,
being a human bomb exploded himself near the car of
S.Beant Singh, then Chief Minister, Punjab at the
porch of the VIP Gate at the Punjab & Haryana Civil
Secretariat, Chandigarh. At the same time, it is
also quite clear that this killing has taken place
in consequences of a well planned conspiracy,
therefore, the prosecution was required only to
prove how this conspiracy was hatched and how the
accused persons, put on trial in this case, along

238

with the accused, who have been declared proclaimed
offenders, attributed for the due execution of the
motive of the conspiracy and this fact is duly
established on record in view of the voluminous
evidence on the file, which is based on a complete
chain of circumstantial evidence indicating that
all the accused persons facing trial in this case
were part and parcel of the conspiracy and as such,
they are liable to be convicted for the offence for
which they have been charge sheeted.

80. To substantiate their case, the learned

Special Public Prosecutor submitted that in view of
the testimony of PW-100, Dilbag Singh and keeping
in view the documents, Ex.P137 to P150, it is
proved on the file that Babbar Khalsa
International, a Pakistan based terrorist group,
headed by accused Wadhawa Singh and Mehal Singh,
since proclaimed offenders, hatched this conspiracy
to kill S.Beant Singh in order to achieve a goal of
severance of a Sikh State called "Khalistan" out of
India, by indulging in violent means and it is also
proved on the file that the Babbar Khalsa
International has also claimed the responsibility
for the assassination of S.Beant Singh through
various communications sent to various newspaper
agencies .

81. It is also proved on the file that accused

Mahal Singh and Wadhawa Singh (proclaimed

239

offenders) instigated Jagtar Singh Hawara, who was
trained in Pakistan and they hatched a conspiracy
for the killing of S.Beant Singh and accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara was sent to India with an instigation
that S.Beant Singh, the Chief Minister, Punjab had
usrpted the power after 1992 election in the State
of Punjab and is responsible for committing
indiscriminate atrocities on the innocent Sikhs in
the State of Punjab and other part of the country
and as such, he should be killed and accordingly
Jagtar Singh Hawara instigated accused Gurmeet
Singh, assassin Dilawar Singh, accused Lakhwinder
Singh and accused Balwant Singh, who all were good
friends and all of them then included the remaining
accused persons in the conspiracy as accused
Paramjit Singh facing trial separately, accused
Jagtar Singh Tara (since proclaimed offender) ,
accused Jagroop Singh (since proclaimed offender)
and accused Navjot Singh, who were the members of
the Akhand Kirtni Jatha also intend to kill S.Beant
Singh, Chief Minister, Punjab.

82. Accordingly during the period of November

1994 to August 1995, all these accused persons
hatched this conspiracy at various places in India
and various parts of Pakistan and this fact is duly
proved on the file in view of the testimony of PW35
and PW-38, who both proved that within hours of the
killing of S.Beant Singh ex-Chief Minister, Punjab,
fax messages mark AAA, DDD and EEE were received by

240

various newspapers, copies of which are AAA/1,
DDD/1 and EEE/1 and in all these documents, the
Babbar Khalsa International has owned the
responsibility for killing S.Beant Singh.

83. Not only this, in one of the document,
Ex.P-150 which is a poster published by the Babbar
Khalsa International, assassin Dilawar Singh
deceased has been shown as a martyr, who has killed
S.Beant Singh by working as a human bomb as
admitted by accused Balwant Singh repeatedly during
the trial as well as in his statement under section
313 Cr.PC. Thus all these facts and circumstances
clearly show that it is established beyond doubt
that it was the Babbar Khalsa International, who
had planned and conspired to kill S.Beant Singh and
they did so with the active connivance and help of
all the accused persons, who were facing trial in
this case.

84. He further submitted that from the
evidence led by the prosecution, it is proved that
as per the motivation of accused Wadhawa Singh,
(since proclaimed offender) , accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara, motivated some persons to come forward to
act as a human bomb for the killing of S.Beant
Singh ex-Chief Minister, Punjab and as per that
motivation, assassin Dilawar Singh offered himself
for this purpose. In July 1995, accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara contacted accused Shamsher Singh and

241

Paramjit Singh, who in turn introduced accused
Jagtar Singh Tara (since proclaimed offender) to
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara in New Delhi. Accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara assured the availability of
arms and ammunitions and he, accordingly, with the
help of accused Shamsher Singh brought the RDX
from his village near Ajnala close to the Indo-Pak
border in truck no. PB-12-A-7947 and the same was
kept in the house of accused Shamsher Singh and
some part of the RDX was kept concealed in the
house of accused Nasib Singh in Village Jhingran
Kalan and accused Nasib Singh kept concealed the
RDX in his house fully knowing the conspiracy.
Thereafter accused Jagtar Singh Tara and Jagtar
Singh Hawara purchased a gray coloured Ambassador
car no. DBA-9598, Ex.P76 from PW-32, S.K.Dutta and
then with the help of accused Paramjit Singh, the
said car was brought to Patiala.

85 Learned Special Public Prosecutor

Mr.Saxena further submitted that on 25.8.1995, a
meeting was held in Gurudwara Dukh Niwaran, Patiala
which was attended by accused Jagtar Singh Hawara,
Jagtar Singh Tara, Paramjit Singh, Balwant Singh
and assassin Dilawar Singh, where a final plan to
kill S.Beant Singh by human bomb was prepared and
thereafter all of them reached Village Jhigran
Kalan from where some part of the RDX was brought
from the house of accused Nasib Singh and then all
the five accused persons reached house no. 981,

242

Phase IV, Mohali which was of their co-accused
Gurmeet Singh. Thereafter car no. DBA-9598 was got
painted in off-white colour to give it a look of an
official car. In the meantime, accused Lakhwinder
Singh also joined them and on the night of
28.8.1995 in the room of accused Gurmeet Singh, RDX
was mixed with the other materials for the purpose
of making a belt bomb and the circuit of the belt
bomb were installed by accused Gurmeet Singh and
after taking the delivery of the car, they decided
to explode S.Beant Singh on 30.8.1995.

86. On 30.8.1995, when they reached the Punjab
& Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, it was
found that S.Beant Singh ex-Chief Minister,
Punjab (deceased) had already left the office, as
a result assassin Dilawar Singh (deceased) and
accused Balwant Singh, who had went to Civil
Secretariat to explode the bomb, returned back and
then they went to the house no. 3031/1, Sector 45,
Chandigarh, which belongs to Chamkaur Singh brother
of deceased assassin Dilawar Singh and stayed there
for the whole night.

87. On the next morning while leaving the
house of Chamkaur Singh, accused assassin Dilawar
Singh told Chamkaur Singh that they are going to do
some big and therefore, he (Chamkaur Singh) should
go away otherwise the police may torture and kill
him. On 31.8.1995, accused assassin Dilawar Singh

243

and accused Balwant Singh again started for the
Civil Secretariat where accused Lakhwinder Singh,
Gurmeet Singh and Jagtar Singh Tara joined them.
Thereafter accused Jagtar Singh Tara and Balwant
Singh went to the Civil Secretariat on a scooter
whereas the remaining accused persons came to the
house of Gurmeet Singh in Phase IV, Mohali. After
coming to know that S.Beant Singh (deceased) had
reached the Secretariat, accused Jagtar Singh Tara
and Balwant Singh reached house no. 981, Phase IV,
Mohali along with car no. DBA-9598. After that,
assassin Dilawar Singh was armed with the belt bomb
and he left the house of accused Gurmeet Singh in
car no. DBA-9598. Accused Balwant Singh followed
them on scooter No. PB-11-1955.

88. After reaching the Secretariat, they
parked the car at some distance from the VIP Gate
of the Secretariat and accused Balwant Singh also
reached there and joined them. Accused Jagtar Singh
Tara then left that place. At about 5.10 p.m., when
S.Beant Singh ex-Chief Minister, Punjab came down
and was in the process of occupying his car No. PB-
08-3469, assassin Dilawar Singh (deceased) reached
near him and get him exploded resulting into a huge
blast as a result of which 15 other persons along
with S.Beant Singh ex-Chief Minister, Punjab were
died and as many as 15 other persons were injured.

89. Learned Public Prosecutor further

244

submitted that immediately after the bomb blast the
Police reached at the spot and Pw-240, Nanha Ram,
then Inspector, SHO, P.S. North, inspected the spot
and found that number of dead bodies were found
scattered all over the place of occurrence
including the dead body of Sardar Beant Singh near
the back seat of the Car bearing registration No.
PB-08-3469 and there was huge damage caused to the
furniture, fixtures and the building of the VIP
lounge .

90. Accordingly, he took the photographs of

the scene of occurrence with the help of some
experts. On further inspection, he found two legs
and a skull, which was later on identified to be
the remnants of the body parts of deceased Dilawar
Singh as mentioned above. Thereafter further
investigations of the case were taken over by the
CBI from the Chandigarh Police. When those two legs
and skull were examined by PW-6, Doctor Inderjit
Dewan, he opined that both these legs and skull
were of the same individual and they had been
severed as a result of the explosive device but he
had advised for DNA test for its identity. Later on
Harnek Singh, father of assassin Dilawar Singh
(deceased) , identified the legs and the skull as
that of his son Dilawar Singh (deceased) but to
confirm the identity, the DNA test was done by Pw-
245, Lalji Singh of the Centre for Cellular and
Molecular Biology, Hyderabad and it was established

245

that the two legs and the skull were of the same
person and that person was deceased Dilawar Singh.

91. Earlier when the place of occurrence was
inspected by PW-240, Inspector Nanha Ram, he found
an abandoned car bearing No. DBA-9598. Later on
this car was searched by the CBI team as well as by
the finger print expert team. On examination of the
car, a chit, Ex.PW60/A and a 9 volt battery,
Ex.P153 was recovered. In the meantime, PW-51,
Surinder Kumar after seeing the photograph of car
No. DBA-9598 in the newspaper approached the police
and disclosed the police that he had painted the
said car on the asking of accused Lakhwinder Singh.
Side by side, PW-99, Chamkaur Singh brother of
assassin Dilawar Singh also contacted the police
and disclosed that his brother was involved in this
killing. Accordingly on 5.9.1995 accused Lakhwinder
Singh was arrested along with scooter No. PCP-2085,
Ex. P80 .

92. PW-114, Dalbir Singh alias Maula also saw
the photograph of the car and disclosed that the
said car was got painted by accused Lakhwinder
Singh from PW-51, Surinder Sharma. On the search of
accused Lakhwinder Singh, some documents having his
handwriting and signatures were also recovered. PW-
114, Dalbir Singh alias Maula also disclosed that
after this incident, accused Lakhwinder Singh also
contacted him and disclosed that he is involved in

246

the killing of S.Beant Singh along with other
accused persons . After taking the specimen
handwriting and finger print of accused Lakhwinder
Singh when the same were got compared with the
disputed handwriting on the documents and the chit
recovered from the car, it was found in the hands
of accused Lakhwinder Singh. Similarly the finger
prints taken from the car also matched with the
finger prints of accused Lakhwinder Singh.
Thereafter on the disclosure of accused Lakhwinder
Singh, accused Gurmeet Singh was arrested on
5.9.1995 in the presence of Surinder Kumar, PW-51
and on the personal search of accused Lakhwinder
Singh, a slip containing the name of Lakhwinder
Singh and the phone number, Ex.PW50/3 was also
recovered and the same was also found in the hands
of accused Lakhwinder Singh.

93. During the interrogation of accused

Gurmeet Singh, he suffered a disclosure statement,
Ex.PW68/A wherein he admitted the factum of
conspiracy. As per his disclosure statement, his
room in house no. 981, Phase IV, Mohali was searched
from which newspapers, card board and other
incriminating articles were recovered as per memo,
Ex . PW68/B, in the presence of PW-68, Puran Chand
and PW-70, Parnab Sain. The said articles were
examined by PW-165, Roop Singh, a Ballistic Expert
and on examination, traces of high explosion of RDX
were found on the same. Similarly PW-160, RS Verma,

247

an expert of the CFSL, Chandigarh, who was also
present at the time of search, also confirmed the
traces of RDX on the incriminating articles
recovered from the room of accused Gurmeet Singh.

94. He further submitted that after arrest of
accused Lakhwinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh, on
13.9.1995, accused Jagtar Singh Tara was also
arrested in Delhi and he suffered a disclosure
statement in which he disclosed the entire planning
of conspiracy leading to the killing of Beant Singh
and other persons. Accused Balwant Singh escaped
from the Secretariat after the bomb blast and
reached Patiala where he parked his Scooter No. PB-
11-1955 with Prem Singh of Pritam Singh, Cycle
stand at Bus Stand, Patiala from where he reached
the house of his foster father Dilawar Singh and
disclosed him about the conspiracy and the killing
of Beant Singh. On 10.9.1995 the Scooter of Balwant
Singh was recovered from the Pritam Cycle stand
Patiala in the presence of PW-72, Prem Singh and
PW-73, Kirat Mohinder Singh and on the search of
the Scooter belt belt made of cloth making for belt
bomb was also recovered and accordingly the
scooter, helmet and belt was taken into possession.

95. As per the facts disclosed by accused
Jagtar Singh Tara, accused Navjot Singh was also
arrested and thereafter on 18.9.1995 accused Nasib
Singh was arrested from his Village Jhingran Kalan

248

and he also suffered a disclosure statement,
Ex.PW81/l, regarding concealment of RDX with him
by accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and thereafter
13.700gm, Ex.P99 RDX was recovered in consequences
of that disclosure statement in the presence of PW-
81, Raghubir Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of Village Jhingran
Kalan vide recovery memo, Ex.PW81/2, by PW-243,
A.P.Singh, Deputy Superintendent, C.B.I. Similarly
during the search of the house of accused Navjot
Singh some incriminating writings were recovered
showing that he had also helped the accused
persons in killing of Beant Singh.

96. After the arrest of accused Balwant

Singh, on search of his house some incriminating
documents showing his involvement in this
conspiracy were also recovered. Not even this
accused Balwant Singh made a confession before the
PW-65, Sh . V . K . Maheshwari , Metropolitan Magistrate,
Delhi, Ex.PW65/F, Wherein he disclosed as to how he
and his co-accused persons conspired and killed
Beant Singh. Not even this during the interrogation
accused Balwant Singh suffered different disclosure
statement and identified the places from where he
and Dilawar Singh along with Jagtar Singh Hawara
got the police uniforms and two belts stitched and
purchased other material used for the preparation
of belt bomb and thereafter he identified all those
places .

249

97. Similarly, as per his disclosure
statements he had also identified all the places
where he stayed from 31.8.1995 till his arrest. The
chance prints lifted from Car bearing No. DBA-9598
used in the commission of the crime were got
compared with the specimen finger prints of accused
persons Balwant Singh and Lakhwinder Singh and some
of those has been found to be that of both these
accused persons.

98. Learned Public Prosecutor, as such, urged
that the prosecution has led sufficient
circumstantial evidence on the file which completes
a chain of events which shows that all the accused
persons were the part and parcel of this conspiracy
and killed Beant Singh and 17 other persons with
help of assassin Dilawar Singh, who acted as human
bomb .

99. To substantiate its case, the learned
Public Prosecutor submitted that as stated earlier,
immediately after the blast Babbar Khalsa
International has owned the responsibility of
killing Beant Singh and during the investigations,
C.B.I collected sufficient evidence on the basis of
the confessions made by the accused persons and the
disclosure statement made by the accused persons,
which leads to recovery of incriminating articles
and the material facts, which points out that all
the accused persons in furtherance of their

250

conspiracy did different acts at different point of
time with sole motive to kill Beant Singh.

100. He further submitted that the most
material evidence of prosecution against the
accused persons is the confession made by accused
Balwant Singh, Ex.PW65/F, accused Jagtar Singh
Tara, Ex.PW86/6 and accused Shamsher Singh,
Ex.PW103/G and these confessions made by the co-
accused are admissible against all the accused
persons as it is a case of conspiracy involving
multifarious acts, under the provisions of Section
10 and 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further
submitted that although the accused persons have
retracted from their confession during the trial
but it is proved on the file that the confessions
made by all these accused persons were not only
voluntarily made but those were also without any
fear, threat or pressure or coercion etc. and
those are admissible in evidence as these are
corroborated from the circumstantial evidence
brought on the file on all broad facts and as such
there is no justifiable reason to retract from the
same and the retraction is also not supported by
any justifiable reason and it is also not made
within the reasonable time of making of the same.

101. To substantiate this plea further, he
submitted that the confession of the accused
Balwant Singh was recorded on 23.01.1996 but he

251

moved an application on 20.2.1996 to retract from
the same alleging that he never made any such
confession. However, the copy of the challan was
already with him and he was knowing about the
making of the confession and as such he failed to
explain why he is retracting from the same
specially when he has no where alleged that any
inducement, any pressure was exerted upon him to
get the confessional statement. PW-65,
V. K.Maheshwari, who recorded the confession of
accused Balwant Singh, has categorically deposed
that he recorded the confession of the accused
Balwant Singh, after satisfying himself that
Balwant Singh is making the same without any
threat, promise or inducement etc. Not even this,
despite opportunity being granted, accused Balwant
Singh has not cross examined this witness on any
aspect of his making of the confession and the
facts disclosed in his confession.

102. At the same time, there is sufficient

incriminating evidence which proves the previous
and subsequent act and conduct of accused Balwant
Singh leading to the commission of this crime as
disclosed by him in his confessional statement,
Ex.PW65/F. Not even this when question no. 249 and
250 was put to accused Balwant Singh regarding
making of confessional statements, Ex.PW65/F, he
alleged that he do not remember and in question
no. 253 he admitted that in his confessional

252

statement, Ex.PW65/F he disclosed that he had
adopted Jaswant Singh and his daughter Kamaldeep
Kaur as his father and sister. This fact further
shows that making of confessional statement by this
accused is not disputed.

103. At the same time, it is further proved on
the file that accused Balwant Singh had admitted
this crime by way of extra judicial confession
before PW-94, Gurpreet Singh, PW-95, Tejinder Pal
Singh and PW- 102, Kuljit Singh and all these three
witnesses have categorically proved this fact. All
these witnesses were previously known to accused
Balwant Singh and there is no enmity or motive
attributed qua these witnesses to depose falsely.
As such this fact further proves that the
confessional statement of accused Balwant Singh
voluntarily made and legally recorded and thus
admissible in evidence not only against accused
Balwant Singh but also against his co accused
persons, as per law laid down in 2004 (3) RCR
Criminal 353, and even this extra judicial
confession are sufficient to link the accused
Balwant Singh and to prove the confession made by
him which further proves the link of the remaining
accused persons.

104. Similarly, the accused Jagtar Singh Tara
(since proclaimed offender) has made a confessional
statement, Ex.PW86/G on 22.9.1995 before PW-86,

253

Balbir Singh, then Special Magistrate, CBI, Patiala
and till 6.5.1999 he never moved an application for
retracting from the same during this period of four
year and for the first time, he moved an
application for retracting from his confession only
on 6 . 5 . 1 999 . However , before this accused Jagtar
Singh Tara moved an application 2.9.1998 in which
he admitted his guilt. Even when PW-86, Balbir
Singh was cross examined by Jagtar Singh Tara a
suggestion was put to him that although accused
Jagtar Singh Tara had made a confessional statement
but it was not recorded in the manner disclosed by
him and this fact alone shows that the making of
disclosure statement by accused Jagtar Singh Tara
is duly proved on the file and there is nothing on
the file to say that it was legally retracted or
not admissible.

105. Not even this, when PW-86 was cross
examined by Jagtar Singh Tara he partly admitted
the making of the confession and as such it is
proved on the file that confession made by accused
Jagtar Singh Tara was also voluntarily made and its
retraction at the later stage is of no consequence
and it also proved the role of remaining accused
persons as per the provisions of Section 30 of the
Indian Evidence Act.

106. In the same manner, the confession of
accused Shamsher Singh, recorded by PW-103, Dinesh

254

Kumar Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala
Courts House, New Delhi, on 16.12.1995, Ex.PW103/G
is also duly proved on the file and even accused
Shamsher Singh has made extra judicial confession
before PW-114, Dalbir Singh @ Maulla admitting the
factum of conspiracy by his co-accused persons
leading to the killing of Beant Singh. Although,
this accused has made a confession on 16.12.1995
and thereafter remanded to judicial custody but he
never moved any application to retract from his
confession till 20.2.1996, when for the first time
he moved an application for retraction. However,
there is nothing on the file to justify the reasons
for retracting from the confession by this accused.

107. At the same time, when PW-103, Dinesh
Kumar Sharma, who has recorded the confession of
this accused was cross examined and a suggestion
was put to him that confessional statement of this
accused has been made by him, under pressure and
after wrongful confinement. However, he has denied
the suggestion in clear words and reiterated that
he was thoroughly satisfied after questioning the
accused that he is willing to make confession
voluntarily without any pressure or threat etc.

108. On the contrary, accused Shamsher Singh
disclosed him that he is religious person and he
came in contact with the terrorists as he was also
under the threat of life by the other terrorist

255

organization and whatever has been done by him, it
was due to compulsion and he wants to make a
statement so that true story should come out and
when the accused was questioned that he can
disclose if any threat etc. has been given by the
CBI, the accused disclosed that he has not been
maltreated by CBI officials nor he is under any
threat force and coercion and making the confession
voluntarily and after granting some time to the
accused to think over, the statement was recorded
at about 3.30 p.m., although he was produced before
PW-103 at 11.30 a.m. As such, there is no ground to
disbelieve the confession made by this accused,
which is further corroborated on all material
aspect of this case by way of circumstantial
evidence, extra judicial confession made before PW-
114 and the act and conduct of the accused before
and after the crime. As such, as per the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2004, Supreme
Court, page 4197, these confessions are sufficient
circumstance to prove the case of the prosecution.

109. To further fortify his case, he submitted

that there is sufficient evidence on the file which
proves that accused Dilawar Singh, Balwant Singh,
Lakhwinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh were close
friends and were associated with each other and it
has been categorically proved by PW-54, Deepinder
Singh, PW-95, Tejinder Pal Singh, PW-114, Dalbir
Singh @ Maulla and PW-111, Mohan Pal, that all

256

these accused persons were knowing each other and
they conspired together to kill Beant Singh as
alleged by the prosecution. Not even this, all the
accused persons involved in the conspiracy were
identified by all the material witnesses through
photographs, which they themselves identified from
the bunch of photographs shown to them and this
fact further proves the involvement of all the
accused persons in this conspiracy.

110. He further submitted that at the same
time, the prosecution has collected sufficient
circumstantial evidence as per overt acts and acts
of omission and commission done by all the accused
persons prior to the conspiracy including the
preparation, the acts done during the execution of
the conspiracy and the acts of omissions and
commissions done after the commission of the crime
till their arrest and the recoveries of the
incriminating articles and material facts made
after their arrest and this circumstantial chain
clearly links the role of each of the accused
persons with the conspiracy.

111. He further submitted that the prosecution
has brought sufficient evidence on the file which
proves that after the commission of the offence
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant Singh
absconded and stayed at different places with false
identities and false names in order to avoid

257

arrest and this clinching fact also links these
accused persons with the factum of conspiracy and
its execution and their involvement in the
execution of the same and this circumstance
clinches the entire issue.

112. He further submitted that in view of the

testimony of PW-76, Amarjit Singh, it is proved on
the file that the accused Jagtar Singh Hawara,
Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh got stitched two
uniforms one each, for Dilawar Singh & Balwant
Singh as per bill, Ex.PW76/l-A. Similarly, PW-75,
Jasbir Singh, also proved that on 24.8.1995 accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara along with Balwant Singh came
to his shop and asked for stitching of one belt and
pent for both of them as per the measurement given
by them and accused Jagtar Singh Hawara also gave a
sketch of the belt, which was later on recovered
from his possession as per his disclosure

statement. It is also proved on the file that on
25.8.1995 accused Balwant Singh took the delivery
of one of the belts and ordered for another belt of
green colour and he accordingly stitched the second
belt which accused Balwant Singh took from him and
this belt was later on recovered from the dickey of
the Scooter of Balwant Singh and identified by PW-
75, Jasbir Singh and all other witnesses as
Ex.P96. Both these witnesses have identified
accused Balwant Singh & Jagtar Singh Hawara in the
court and also the photographs of deceased Dilawar

258

Singh .

113. To further link the story, learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that it has been categorically
stated by PW-218, Harkesh, one of the Ranger of
National Security Guard that at the time of this
occurrence he found one person in the police
uniform going towards the car of CM and before he
could understand there was a blast.

114. Learned Public Prosecutor further
submitted that it is also proved on the file that
there was definite motive with the accused persons
to kill the deceased Beant Singh. To substantiate
this plea he submitted that as submitted by the
accused Balwant Singh in his written explanation to
the case of the prosecution, all the accused
persons were having perception on the instigation
of Wadhawa Singh and Mehal Singh and Jagtar Singh
Hawara that Beant Singh has usurped the power after
1992 election in the state of Punjab despite the by
cot of these election by the main political parties
and after becoming Chief Minister he indulged in
indiscriminate atrocities against the innocent
Sikhs by killing, illegal custodies, tortures,
elimination and false encounter and thereby
indulged in activities against the Sikh religion
and started claiming himself to be Ambassador of
Peace and incarnation of Guru Gobind Singh and Lord
Rama .

259

115. All the accused persons were not happy
with this role of Beant Singh and they think him
enemy no . 1 of the Sikh community and the main
hurdle for the creation of Khalistan and to achieve
this motive, all of them on the instigation of
Internationally sponsored Terrorist Groups,
specially Babbar Khalsa International, which were
further helped by some International Countries,
hatched a conspiracy and helped each other by
contributing his role, as found during the
investigations and this fact is a strong
circumstance which fortify the case of the
prosecution .

116. Not even this, from the documents, Ex.P137
to Ex.P150, it is proved that Babbar Khalsa
International has owned the responsibility for
killing Beant Singh within hours of this bomb blast
and they also published a pamphlet/poster Ex.P150
paying homage to assassin Dilawar Singh for
killing Beant Singh and declaring him as Martyr and
this fact further proved on the file from the fax
message mark AAA, DDD and EEE, as proved on the
file by PW-35 and PW-38.

117. He further submitted that there is
sufficient evidence on the file which further
proved that all the accused persons facing trial in
this case were known to each other and were

260

associated with each other from a very long time.
First of all PW-99, Chamkaur Singh, elder brother
of deceased Dilawar Singh, had deposed that accused
Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh were close friends
and accused Lakhwinder Singh & Gurmeet Singh were
residents of same street and all were known to each
other. This very fact is also corroborated by PW-
54, Deepinder Mehta, PW-95, Tejnder Pal Singh, PW
113, Surinder Singh, PW-114, Dalbir Singh @ Maulla
and PW-111, Mohan Pal and it is also undisputed
case of accused Lakhwinder Singh & Gurmeet Singh
that they are known to each other and residents of
same street. Thus, the association of accused
persons with each other further shows that they all
were having confidence with each other and they
hatched this conspiracy accordingly.

118. Learned Public Prosecutor further

submitted that one more material circumstance which
links the accused persons with this conspiracy is
that Scooter No. PB-11-1955, Exhibited Ex.P-77, is
proved to be owned by accused Balwant Singh and it
is proved that this scooter was used by accused
Balwant Singh and his co accused during and prior
to the conspiracy and even after the blast accused
Balwant Singh escaped to Patiala on the Scooter. To
substantiate this plea, he submitted that in view
of testimony of PW-42, Amar Singh, it is proved on
the file that this witness has purchased this
Scooter from its original owner Major Singh and

261

then sold it to PW-34, Kamalpreet Singh Walia as
per the documents Ex.PW34/l to Ex.PW34/4 and also
handed over the registration of the scooter to him
and further PW-34, has also deposed that after
purchasing the Scooter from PW-42 he sold the same
to deceased Dilawar Singh through a agent Vipan
Kumar and he handed over the affidavit executed by
registered owner Amar Singh, Ex.PW34/l along with
other documents to Dilawar Singh and he has also
identified the photographs of deceased Dilawar
Singh mark YY . Even PW-54, Deepinder Mehta as
supported the version of PW-34 and deposed that the
Scooter in question was purchased by deceased
Dilawar Singh.

119. One more circumstance which links accused

Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant Singh and the
Scooter with this case is that PW-49, ASI Arun
Kumar has proved that on 24.8.1995 he challaned the
Scooter when it was being driven by accused Balwant
Singh with one pillion rider Jagtar Singh Hawara,
as per the challan chit, Ex.PW49/l and the RC of
the Scooter was taken into possession and he had
also identified the photographs of accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara and Balwant Singh, Ex.PW49/3 and
Ex.PW49/4 and have also identified both these
accused persons in the court. The testimony of all
these four witnesses remained unrebutted and it
proved beyond doubt that the Scooter N . PB-1 1-1 955 ,
Ex.P77 was in possession of accused Balwant Singh

262

and Dilawar Singh and on 24.8.1995 Balwant Singh
and Jagtar Singh Hawara were found together at
Chandigarh .

120. Above all, from the testimony of PW-72,
Prem Singh and PW-73, Kirat Mohinder Singh, it is
further proved on the file that on 31.8.1995
accused Balwant Singh after the blast reached
Patiala on the Scooter and parked the same in
Pritam Cycle Stand, Bus Stand Patiala, owned by PW-
73, in the presence of PW-72, Prem Singh along with
helmet, Ex.P94 and later on 10.9.1995 the Scooter
was recovered from Pritam Cycle Stand in the
presence of both these witnesses and when the
dickey of scooter was searched a cloth belt,
Ex.P97, was recovered from the same and same was
taken into possession as per the recovery memo
Ex.P72/2. Similarly both these witnesses identified
the photographs of accused Balwant Singh from a
bunch of photographs which is mark QQQQ and PW-72.
had also identified accused Balwant Singh in the
court. He had also identified the receipt of the
Scooter, Ex.P72/l issued by him to the accused
Balwant Singh and from the testimony of these two
witnesses, it is proved that this Scooter belongs
to Balwant singh and Dilawar Singh and was used in
the commission of the crime.

121. Similarly, another Scooter PCP-2085,
Ex.P80, which was owned by accused Lakhwinder Singh

263

is also proved to have been used in the commission
of this crime. PW-54, Deepinder Mehta has
categorically deposed that he was knowing accused
Lakhwinder Singh, Balwant Singh, Gurmeet Singh and
Dilawar Singh being residents of his street in
Patiala and he purchased the scooter No. PCP-2085
from one Harjit Singh as per the affidavit, Ex.D-9
and sold the same to accused Lakhwinder Singh as
per the receipt, Ex.PW54/l. It is also proved on
the file when accused Lakhwinder Singh was arrested
this scooter was also recovered from him and even
PW-51, Surinder Sharma, a painter of Sector 7
corroborated this fact. Even PW-114, Dalbir Singh @
Maul la, who was friend of accused Lakhwinder Singh,
also corroborated the stand of PW-54 and he also
corroborated that this scooter has been purchased
by accused Lakhwinder Singh in the commission of
crime .

122. The other circumstance, which proved the

use of Car No. DBA-9598, Ex.P76 by the accused
persons, is proved from the testimony of PW-51, who
deposed that on 26.8.1995 accused Lakhwinder Singh
came to his shop with two other accused persons
along with the car in question having steel grey
colour and requested him to paint the car into off
white colour and hand over the same by 29.8.1995
and accordingly after painting the car on
29.8.1995, one person with trimmed beard came to
his shop along with Lakhwinder Singh for taking the

264

delivery of the car but PW-51 ask them to take the
delivery of car on 30.8.1995 and thereafter he
handed over the car to them and before that he also
got the number plates repainted from PW-54, Tota
Ram. He had also identified the car as well as
accused Lakhwinder Singh in the court and also
deposed that accused Lakhwinder Singh was also
arrested in his presence. He also identified the
photo graph of deceased Dilawar Singh mark YY-4, as
the person who accompanied Lakhwinder Singh, on all
the three days. He also identified the photographs
of accused Gurmeet Singh mark SSS.

123. Even PW-114, Dalbir Singh @ Maulla had

supported this stand and deposed that he knows
accused Lakhwinder Singh, Dilawar Singh and Balwant
Singh and on 30.8.1995 on the request of Lakhwinder
Singh, he took the accused Balwant Singh to the
shop of PW-51, Surinder Sharma, where accused
Dialwar Singh was already present and admitted that
they have come to take the delivery of the car and
he further deposed that on the day of bomb blast
accused Lakhwinder Singh and Balwant Singh were
present in Civil Secretariat and after the blast
accused Lakhwinder Singh met him near the Rock
garden and admitted this occurrence.

124. Thus this evidence proves that the car in

question was used by the accused persons in the
commission of the crime and after the recovery of

265

the car the chance finger prints lifted from the
car matches with the finger print of accused
Balwant Singh and Lakhwinder Singh. The traces of
RDX were found from all the articles recovered from
the spot and as per the opinion of the expert
witness, it is proved that a belt bomb was used by
deceased Dilawar Singh in which RDX and other
material was packed and exploded to kill deceased
Beant Singh. At the same time no motive or enmity
has been attributed qua the witnesses of
prosecution on this aspect. As such, all the
circumstantial evidence completes the chain showing
the role played by each and every accused persons
in the execution of the conspiracy.

125. Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor

explained the role played by each and every accused
persons in groups with each other as well as
individually before the conspiracy, after the
execution of the conspiracy and the incriminating
articles recovered and the facts disclosed by the
accused persons, after their arrest as per their
confessions and disclosure statement and concluded
that there is no scope of doubt regarding the
genesis of occurrence that it was a bomb blast
caused by the deceased assassin Dilawar Singh being
a human bomb resulting into killing of Beant Singh
and 16 other persons and all this was done by all
the accused persons in conspiracy with each other.

266

126. To substantiate this part, he submitted
that after the arrest of accused Jagtar Singh Tara,
it was disclosed by him that accused Navjot Singh
was also involved in this conspiracy as RDX
brought by Jagtar Singh Hawara, was kept in the
house of accused Navjot Singh and after the arrest
of accused Navjot Singh, when the search of house
of accused Navjot Singh was conducted by PW-244,
R.S.Dhankar, documents Ex.PW91/23, Ex.P91/25,
Ex.PW91/27, Ex.PW91/29 and Ex.PW91/46 were
recovered and after comparing the hand writing of
these documents, PW-166, Tilak Raj Nehra held the
same to be in the hand writing of accused Navjot
Singh and these documents clearly shows that
accused Navjot Singh was part and parcel of the
conspiracy being a member of Anand Kirtani Jatha .

127. Similarly the accused Jagtar Singh Tara
suffered a disclosure statement, Ex.PW80/l
disclosing that on 25.8.1995 he along with Jagtar
Singh Hawara along with three other persons went to
Village Jhingran Kalan and then to the house of
accused Nasib Singh and accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
brought two bags of RDX from the house of accused
Nasib Singh and also disclosed that some more RDX
is lying in the house of accused Nasib Singh, who
is also part and partcel of this conspiracy and
after that he identified the house of accused Nasib
Singh and then accused Nasib Singh was also
arrested and he also suffered a disclosure

267

statement, Ex.P81/l in the presence of PW-81,
Raghubir Singh, Ex Sarpanch of Village Jhingran
Kalan and admitted that the accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara kept the RDX in his house and he was knowing
that it was being used for the murder of Beant
Singh and thereafter as per his disclosure
statement, accused Nasib Singh himself brought one
bag from the cattle fodder and on search 13.700 kg.
RDX was recovered from that bag which was taken
into possession vide recovery memo, Ex.PW81/2 after
converting the same into sealed parcel.

128. Learned Public Prosecutor further
submitted that although PW-81, Raghubir Singh has
been won over by the accused persons but he still
deposed that the RDX was recovered from the house
of Nasib Singh as per the recovery memo, Ex.PW81/2
and it was sealed and packed into a bag in his
presence. He identified that bag as Ex.P98 and the
RDX as Ex.P99 and thus the factum of recovery of
RDX is duly proved and links the accused, Nasib
Singh with the conspiracy.

129. Apart from this, it is also proved on the
file that accused Wadhawa Singh and Mehal Singh
instigated accused Jagtar Singh Hawara to kill
Beant Singh and accused Balwant Singh & Dilawar
Singh were also decided to kill Beant Singh
because of his alleged atrocities. Accused Harjit
Singh, since absconding, met accused Balwant Singh

268

some where in the month of March or April, 1995 and
asked Balwant Singh to kill Beant Singh with the
promise of all type of help. In the month of June,
1995 Harjit Singh called Balwant Singh on the
telephone of Bhushan Sirhandi and asked him to meet
a person at Gurduwara Seesh Ganj in this regard and
thereafter accused Balwant Singh met that person,
who was later on identified as Jagtar Singh Hawara
and both of them went to Guest House at Ghaziabad
and discussed the plan. Thereafter accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara and Balwant Sngh planned to kill
Beant Singh by exploding a belt bomb and accused
Dilawar Singh offered himself as human bomb.
Thereafter accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant
Singh got stitched belt bomb and then they met
Paramjit Singh @ Kala and Jagtar Singh Tara and
they all met at Gurudwara Dukh Niwaran Patiala,
where Dilawar also joined them.

130. Accused Jagtar Singh Tara and Jagtar Singh

Hawara procured a Car No. DBA-9598 and brought it
to Patiala and then they collected explosive from
Village Jhingran Kalana and came to Mohali. Accused
Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh went to Patiala and
got stitched two police uniforms and took the
delivery of belt. The colour of the car was got
changed from Grey to White by Jagtar Singh Hawara
with the help of accused Lakhwinder Singh, there
after all of them went to the room of Gurmeet
Singh. On the intervening night of 28/29.8.1995 a

269

final plan to explode Beant Singh by a human bomb
was prepared by the accused Dilawar Singh, Balwant
Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara,
Paramjit Singh, Jagtar Singh Tara and an attempt
was also made on 30.8.1995 but it could not succeed
as Beant Singh had already left Secretariat.
Ultimately on 31.8.1995 again deceased Dilawar
Singh was loaded with belt bomb by Balwant Singh &
Jagtar Singh Tara and electric circuit was
completed by accused Gurmeet Singh and then Jagtar
Singh Tara and Dilawar Singh left in car No-DBA
9598, Ex. 76 and reached Secretariat. After some time
accused Balwant Singh reached there on his Scooter
and then as per the plan Dilawar Singh exploded
himself near to the Car of Beant Singh killing him
and 16 other persons and thus it is proved on the
file that all the accused persons who were part and
parcel of this conspiracy committed this crime on
the instigation of International Terrorist
Organizations, specially Babbar Khalsa

International and immediately after the blast
Babbar Khalsa International also owned the
responsibility. With these submission he submitted
that the case of prosecution is proved against all
the accused persons and they be convicted
accordingly .

131. The prosecution has also relied upon

various authorities in support of the proposition
of law applicable to the case in hand which will be
discussed at the appropriate time.

270

Vol. II

DEFENCE VERSION

132. While challenging the entire case of the

prosecution, Shri DS. Chimney learned defence
counsel, assisted by a team of lawyers and Shri
A.S.Chahal Advocate, vehemently submitted that the
entire story of the prosecution leading to the
prosecution of the accused persons is based on
suppression of true genesis of the occurrence by
concealing the material evidence available at the
spot by way of deliberate acts of omission and
commission to frame the accused persons and there
are sufficient circumstances on the file which
shows that this case was investigated by the CBI
after the arrest of the accused persons and a cock
and bull story was concocted by collecting evidence
by going backward to link the accused persons with
this crime. Thus the CBI has conducted a tainted
and bias investigation and arrested and challaned
the accused persons despite the fact that there was
no legal evidence against any of them.

133. To substantiate his case, he submitted

that this case can be termed as a case of no
investigations or at the most a badly investigated
case from its very beginning till its end and all
the material aspects of the case available at the
spot after the crime were suppressed.

271

134. To support this theory he submitted that

there are hundreds of circumstances which shows
that this case was never investigated in the manner
it was required, to go to the root of the blast and
the CBI has worked as contract Bureau of
Investigations and made a half cooked, half raw
story leading no where. In support of this, he at
the very out set of his arguments, pointed out the
following circumstances : -

(a) Despite the fact that it is admitted
case of the prosecution that at least 16
vehicles were damaged, including the three
cars of the carcade of the CM and his
escort vehicles but no report of any damage to
any of the vehicles were got prepared from
any expert or by any Police Officer.

(b) There is no report on the file to
show the magnitude of the blast and damage, to
show how the bomb caused damaged to other
vehicles and how it was possible.

(c) Despite the fact that it is admitted
by the CBI that the investigations of this
case were taken over by it from Chandigarh
Police on 1.9.1995, there is no record on the
file to show that what was done by the CBI
Authorities on 1.9.1995.

272

(d) Despite the fact that it is admitted
case of the CBI that a spot inspection cum
seizure memo was prepared on 1.9.1995 but the
same has not been made part of the record for
the reasons best known to the prosecuting
agency and there is no explanation in this
regard also.

(e) PW-165, Roop Singh, a Ballistics
Expert of the CFSL, who was one of the member
of the team of Expert, who visited the spot on
1.9.1995, admitted that he directed the
investigating officer to lift certain
incriminating articles from the spot and those
were also picked up but none of those articles
were made part of the record and there is no
explanation as to where those articles had
gone. It is further admitted by PW-165 that
the wind screen of the car of CM was blown off
and was examined by him and report in this
regard was also prepared but that report was
also not made part of the record.

(f) From the inquest report of Beant
singh, it is proved on the file that a Video
film of the scene of crime was prepared on
31.8.1995 but there is no mention of this
video film in the investigations and it has
also not been made part of the record and has
been suppressed for the reasons known to the

273

CBI .

(g) Despite the fact that it is admitted
by the CBI that the Video Film was sent to
Lt.Col Manik Sabharwal, a Ballistics Expert of
the Army, and he also prepared a spot
inspection report, mark CQ/1 dated 12.10.1995
and gave his opinion as to the cause and
manner of blast but this witness was not
examined during the trial and his report was
not relied upon which further shows that the
material facts have been suppressed.

(h) It is also admitted by PW-240,
Inspector Nanha Ram, the first Investigating
Officer of the Chandigarh Police and who was
the first one to reach at the spot to assess
the situation, that he had called two Police
photographers and took the photographs of the
scene of the crime including the photographs
of two legs and a skull and the car DBA-9598
but none of these photographs have been made
part of the record. Even, the photographs
taken by the CBI independently were not made
part of the record.

(i) The CBI had relied upon the
photographs taken by the Lalji Mishra, an
expert of FSL Punjab but there is no evidence
on the file as to who had called Mr. Lalji

274

Mishra at the spot and how he took the
photographs and what is the authenticity of
those photographs

(j) None of the cars of the Carcade of

the CM has been produced in the court during
the trial to show the magnitude of the damage
and the effect of the blast on the vehicle
including the report of any expert in this
regard .

(k) No part of the bomb or the alleged

belt bomb has been found at the spot.

(1) It is admitted case of PW-31 and PW-

240, Nanha Ram that there were so many weapons
lying scattered at the spot but despite
this, none of these weapon and the arms and
ammunitions found at the spot was taken into
possession or examined by a Expert and no such
report has been brought on the file to show
the presence of these weapons and its
repercussions .

(m) No site plan of the recovery of any of
the articles lifted from the spot or during
the entire investigations has been prepared
and brought on the record.

135. He further submitted that the factum of

275

faulty investigations is further proved on the file
from the FIR, Ex.PW30/4, which has been registered
at 8.30 p.m., on the statement of PW-30 as there is
no explanation on the file as to why the FIR was
not immediately registered despite the fact that
there were so many eye witnesses of the occurrence
including Baldev Singh, MLA, who was alive at that
time and who was the most important eye witness
being present near the Chief Minister, HC Baljit
Singh driver of the other car of the CM, PW-6,
Manojit Pal, a Security man. On the contrary, it
shows that the FIR was registered later on to twist
the facts as per their reguirements only in the
next morning.

136. Not even this, on the evening of 31.8.1995
itself the investigations were handed over to the
CBI but the formal registration of the case in the
CBI division was registered on 1.9.1995 at 11.30
a.m and then investigations were started by the CBI
team only the after noon of 1.9.1995. Not even this
it is further clear from the records that after
taking over the investigations by the CBI on
1.9.1995 nothing was done by the CBI till 3.9.1995
and all the proceedings done by the CBI on 1.9.1995
have been suppressed and concealed.

137. The learned defence counsel further
submitted that the entire case of the prosecution
leading to the theory of human bomb blast is based

276

on the recovery of two legs and a skull of a
unknown person from the spot, which was later on
identified to be of assassin Dilawar Singh but
there is no evidence on the file to prove the
existence of two legs and the skull at the spot
immediately after the blast and its recovery
leading to the blast by a human bomb.

138. To substantiate his plea, he submitted
that while the postmortem report of dead body of
Baldev Singh deceased was conducted by PW-6,
Dr.Diwan and he found that the injuries leading to
death of Baldev Singh were caused by bomb a of
incendiary type. At the same time, the prosecution
allege that on 31.8.1995, when PW-240, Nanha Ram
visited the spot, he took into possession the two
legs and a skull of unknown person and kept the
same in a refrigerator of Govt Hospital Sector 16,
where as later on it was alleged that those were
sent to P.G.I.

139. At the same time, it was alleged that on
2.9.95 on the asking of PW-240, Nanha Ram these two
legs and skull were examined by PW-16, Dr.Sawhney
to give an opinion but no documentary evidence has
been brought on the file to show that any
application has been moved in this regard with
Dr.Sawhney. Even Dr.Sawhney has admitted that he
has not prepared any report regarding the
examination of two legs and the skull nor he gives

277

anything else in writing. On the contrary as per
the DDR No. 47 dated 1.9.1995, when Nanha Ram
reported back to the Police Station and recorded
this fact in Daily Diary, there was no mention of
the recovery of any two legs and a skull nor his
presence in the Hospital on 2.9.1995, as the DDR,
Ex.D8 shows that Nanha Ram was on VIP duty during
that time. Even in the postmortem report of
deceased Beant Singh, it is no where mentioned that
near the body of Beant Singh two legs and a skull
were also found.

140. At the same time, it is admitted case of
the prosecution that two legs and skull were
examined by PW-6 for the purpose of postmortem
examination only on 4.9.1995 but there is no
evidence on the file to show the existence and
recovery of these two legs and a skull after the
incident till its examination and there is nothing
on the file as to where these legs and skull were
kept. In the inguest report, Ex.PW6/42 it is
mentioned that these two legs and skull were being
sent to PGI but PW-240 alleged that it was taken to
G.H Sector 16 Chandigarh. There is a cutting in the
application moved by SI Gamdoor Singh for the PMR
of two legs and a skull, Ex.PW6/40 and SI Gamdoor
Singh, PW-176, admitted that he was not present
when it was prepared on 5.9.1995.

141. Thus there is no evidence on the file to

278

show the recovery of these two legs and skull from
the spot on 31.8.1995. Even Dr.Sawhney in his cross
examination admitted that he has not prepared any
written report of his examination on 2.9.1995 and
the description given by him of the legs is that
these were below groin crease whereas the case of
the prosecution that these legs were below knee.

142 All these facts & circumstances shows that
these legs and skull were not recovered from the
spot but it was introduced later on to link and
prove the human bomb theory. No mortuary register
of GH Sector 16 has been brought on the record to
prove the depositing of these legs and skull in the
mortuary. On the contrary, when the defence
insisted, PW-20 alleged that there is no mortuary
register being maintained at G.H Sector 16
Chandigarh, whereas actually register is being
maintained in Mortuary and that register has been
suppressed only with a view to conceal the true
facts. Thus once the recovery of two legs and skull
were doubtful, the entire story of the prosecution
that it was a case of human blast caused by
deceased Dilawar Singh is without any basis. On the
contrary, it proves that the true genesis of the
blast has been suppressed by the CBI in collusion
with Punjab Police.

143 Not even this, it is alleged by the
prosecution that PW-165, Roop Singh examined the

279

scene of crime as well as two legs and skull but in
his report, Ex.PW165/l to 7, he has not mentioned
this fact and he has not prepared any separate
report as to the examination of two legs and skull
at the spot. Even PW-240, Nanha Ram alleged that
he had seen two legs and the skull near the car of
the CM but no separate recovery memo for taking the
same into possession has been made, which further
falsify the factum of existence and recovery of
these body parts at the spot.

144 To further substantiate this aspect, he
submitted that there is no evidence on the file to
show at what place these two legs and skull were
kept from 31.8.1995 to 4.9.1995, when these were
handed over to PW-6, Dr.Inderjit Diwan for
postmortem examination.

145 Not even this, the identity of two legs
and skull by Harnek Singh, father of deceased
Dilawar Singh and Chamkaur Singh brother of
deceased Dilawar Singh, is also doubtful as it is
alleged by PW-246 that this identification was done
by these persons on 5.9.1995 at about 4.30 PM in
the mortuary of P.G.I in the presence of PW-6,
Dr.Inderjit Diwan vide identification memo,
Ex.D99/l, whereas this fact has been denied by PW-
6, Dr.Inderjit Diwan, who stated that two legs and
skull were kept by him in the dissection room of
his department from 4.9.1995 to 6.11.1995, when

280

those were handed over to the Harnek Singh, as per
the request of the C.B.I. If it is so this fact
clearly proves that the alleged two legs and skull
were never recovered from the spot nor those were
ever identified by the father and brother of
deceased Dilawar Singh and a false story has been
made by the prosecution to introduce human bomb
theory just to wriggle out from their own
inefficiency in the security of the deceased CM.

14 6 He further submitted that even the report

of PW-245, Dr.Lalji Singh, Director Centre for
Cellular Molecular Biology Hyderabad, Ex.PW245/7 is
of no consequences as there is nothing on the file
to show that he had ever taken any sample of
tissues from the alleged two legs and the skull and
compared the same with the blood of Harnek Singh
and Surjit Kaur parents of deceased Dilawar Singh,
as taking of blood samples of those two persons is
highly doubtful because it is alleged by PW-246,
A.K.Chanda that the blood samples of Chamkaur
Singh, Harnek Singh and Surjit Kaur were taken by
Dr.Dalbir Singh at about 4.30PM as mentioned in
the memo, Ex.PW99/l in the presence of Dr.Lalji
singh but Lalji Singh admitted that he reached at
P.G.I only at about 6.30 PM and then took the
samples through the Doctors of the P.G.I. Whereas
the testimony of PW-246, Dr .A.K.Chanda falsify this
fact. Even the parents of deceased Dilawar Singh
namely Harnek Singh and Surjit Kaur have not been

281

examined by the prosecution on this aspect to prove
the factum of taking of the samples and its test by
the PW-245.

147 Not even this PW-245 further admitted
that out of the 17 parcels taken only three samples
referred mark D, E and F in the report, Ex.PW245/2,
whereas all the remaining samples mark G to mark T,
as mentioned in the report, Ex.PW245/2, are found
to be unfit for comparison being highly degraded
and this fact further shows that the samples of
disputed body parts were not properly kept and were
decomposed and when mark G to mark T were
decomposed being taken from the same parts, how
sample D, E and F can match, specially when all the
samples were taken from the same parts, which were
stored in a single container of formalin and
ethanol and due to this DNA had decomposed. At the
same time by now it has not been established that
the DNA test is a perfect test specially when it
has not been carried by all the five recognized
methods of DNA testing.

148 At the same time, the best established
form of forensic DNA identification analysis is
restriction fragment, length, polymorphisms
analysis known as RFLP but it has not been
conducted in the present case and report of PW-245
is based on Polymerase chain reaction test, known
as PCR method, is not a full proof test as it is a

282

technique used for DNA amplification as admitted by
PW-245 and if it so report of PW-245 is not
admissible as a direct evidence on this dispute.

14 9 At the same time, even the dispatch of

samples to the Hyderabad Laboratory is doubtful.
The prosecution has not brought on the file any
dispatch letter but it was called from PW-245
during his cross examination and exhibited as PW-
245/14, which shows that there is no dispatch
number to show, when the samples were forwarded to
CCMB Hyderabad and in what condition. At the same
time the identification cards Ex.PW-245/3 to
Ex.PW-245/6 are incomplete and it is no where
mentioned in these identification cards as to for
what purpose the samples are being taken, in whose
presence, by whom and all the columns of three
forms are blank and lastly in the report,
Ex.PW245/2, it is mentioned that the samples were
received in the laboratory on 7.9.1995 whereas it
is alleged by the prosecution that those were taken
to the Laboratory by PW-245 himself on 8.9.1995.
All these facts shows that this report is also
based on the whims of the CBI and not admissible in
evidence .

150 Not even this, PW-6, Dr.Diwan alleged that

he has also handed over five bottles containing the
tissues from the two legs and the skull to Doctor
Lalji Singh but Lalji Singh had no where stated so.

283

He further stated that no permission of any
Magistrate and consent of these persons were
obtained before taking their blood samples and as
such the DNA report based on those samples is not
admissible in evidence and can be made basis to
conclude that the two legs and the skull were of
deceased Dilawar Singh. In support of this plea,
learned defence ocunsel relied upon Gautam Kundu
Verus State of West Bengal, 1993 (2) Recent Criminal
Report, Criminal , page 4 97, Hira Singh Vs. State
ofU.T 2005 (4) RCR Criminal page 559 and Sakthi
Vel Vs. Karpagam 2005(4) RCR Criminal, page 422

151 Learned defence counsel further submitted
that in view of the above facts & circumstances, it
is proved on the file that it was not a case of
human bomb blast but it was a case of multi bomb
blast which took place at different places and one
of these bomb blast may be from inside the car but
the prosecution has intentionally suppressed the
true genesis of the occurrence and put forward a
tailor made story of the human bomb just to wriggle
out from the liability of the security agencies,
who were liable for this blast

152 To substantiate this plea, he submitted
that it is alleged by the prosecution that an anti-
sabotage test was being done as and when the
Carcade of the CM left his house and on 31.8.1995
also this check was done by PW-40, Salamat Masih

284

but this fact has been put forward by the
prosecution just to improve its case to save the
security agencies as it is admitted case of PW-40
that a register of Sabotage check is being
maintained but no such register showing anti
sabotage check on 31.8.1995, has been brought on
record despite the fact that PW-40 alleged that it
was taken by the CBI authorities whereas it is
undisputed case of the prosecution that no such
test was done when the CM was to leave the
Secretariat .

153 At the same time, the most material
witnesses to give the true account of the genesis
of occurrence was PW-78, D . K . Tripathy, who was the
Security Incharge on duty, being an officer of the
SP rank and he was the most important witness, who
could gave the true account of the sequence of
events but his statement was not recorded
immediately after the blast despite the fact that
after being injured in blast he gained
consciousness on the same night. Whereas his
statement was recorded for the first time on
11.9.1995, which itself shows that his statement
is delayed unnecessarily to suit the theory to be
propounded by the prosecution.

154 Not even this, PW-53, HC Baljit Singh
driver of the second car of the Carcade of the CM,
which was immediately after the car No. PB-08-3469,

285

PW-66, Iqbal Singh driver of the third car of the
Carcade of the CM and PW-56, Manojit Pal Singh, a
Security official of the CRPF of the Escort Gypsy
were the four other material eye witnesses of the
occurrence and their statements were also not
recorded immediately after the blast, despite the
fact that they were also fit to make the statement.
This fact alone shows that a false story giving a
twisted account of the occurrence has been
concocted .

155 He further submitted that in Ganesh Bhawan
Patel Versus State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 Supreme
Court, page 135, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
delay of few hours simpliciter, in recording the
statements of eye witnesses may not by itself
amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution
case but it may assume such a character if there
are concomitant circumstances to suggest that the
investigator was deliberately marking time with a
investigator a intention to decide about the shape
to be given to the case and the eye witnesses to be
introduced. Accordingly in the present case non
recording of statement of above mentioned material
witnesses, immediately after the blast shows that
the investigations of this case are highly
defective and tainted leading no where to prove the
human bomb theory.

156 To further substantiate this plea, he

286

submitted that from the postmortem reports of all
the injured vis a vis the seat of their injuries
and place dead bodies at the spot after the blast
and their positions, when the blast took place,
shows that the injuries suffered by all the dead
persons were not on account of a human bomb blast
but it was on account of multiple bomb blast taken
place at different places. Some of the dead persons
died because of the burn injuries, which are not
possible in a blast involving explosives but is
possible only in case of incendiary bomb blast as
admitted by PW-6, Dr.Inderjit Diwan, a Forensic
Expert. the Metallic pieces projectiles, glass
pieces and other foreign articles recovered from
the dead bodies of dead persons coupled with the
seat of injuries and nature of injuries clearly
shows that these injuries and death because of
those injuries is not possible in a blast involving
explosives. Thus, this fact also shows that the
true genesis of the occurrence and the blast has
been suppressed and it was only for this purpose
that the photographs taken by the police
photographers of the Chandigarh Police, as admitted
by PW-240 and photographs taken by the CBI
Photographer have not been made part of the record
and even the video film prepared at the spot to
show the scene of crime and its genesis has been
suppressed .

157 He further submitted that the most

287

material incriminating evidence to show the nature
of blast, was the three cars of the Carcade of the
CM along with the other damaged vehicles but no
report as to their mechanical examination or their
inspection to assess the loss and the nature of
blast has been brought on the file which further
shows that the very story put forward by the
prosecution that this blast was because of human
bomb blast has not been proved.

158 To support this he submitted that in
Bhagirath Versus State of HP, 1976 CRR page 116, it

was settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that it was
the duty of the prosecution to prove that very
story which was forwarded in the charge sheet and
no new story can be created by the court. As such,
he submitted that this fact further shows that the
entire story of the prosecution is based on
concocted facts.

159 To further substantiate their defence,
learned counsel for the accused submitted that the
second most material evidence relied upon by the
prosecution is the recovery of car No. DBA-9598,
which is exhibited as Ex.P76, from the spot and its
link with the accused persons. However, the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
recovery of the car DBA 9598 from the spot and its
link with the accused persons.

288

160 To fortify his plea, he submitted that it
is alleged by the prosecution that PW-240, when
visited the spot after the blast, an Ambassador
Car, DBA-9598, Ex.P76, of white colour was found
parked abandoned in the parking area toward the
Haryana Secretariat and on inspection, he found
that the said car has been recently painted and he
suspected that the said car might have been used or
connected with the commission of the crime of Bomb
blast and then he put a guard to guard the car.

161 Thereafter on the same evening when he
searched the car he found various papers including
the registration certificate mark WW, Insurance
Cover, a slip containing some writing in Punjabi, a
small battery and took all the articles into
possession as per the memo, Ex.PW177/7 and the car
along with bunch of keys were also taken into
possession as per separate seizure memo, Ex.PW177/6
and then brought the car to the Police Station and
thereafter on 1.9.1995, when the CBI took over the
investigation, the said car was examined by PW-178,
S.K.Chadha in the presence of Surinder Pal and
memo, Ex.PW178/l was prepared vide which some
chance prints of finger prints etc were lifted
along with the photographs and the rear view mirror
of the car was also taken into possession for the
examination in the Laboratory.

162 However, a totally contradictory story

289

has been put forward by PW-178 in this regard. As
per this witness he was directed by the CBI on
31.8.1995 to visit the scene of occurrence and
inspect the car and he accordingly reached
Chandigarh on 1.9.1995 and inspected the car
between 11 a.m to 12 noon.

163 At the same time, it is admitted case of
PW-240, Nanha Ram, that when he examined the car,
he took the photographs of the car with the help of
Police photographers but those photographs were not
made part of the record. No independent witness was
joined during the inspection of the car either by
PW-240, Nanha Ram or by PW-245, S.K.Chadha and even
that car was not kept in proper custody till the
trial. It is alleged that PW-178 inspected the car
in the presence of PW-190, ASI Ranjit Singh.
However, as per the DDRs, copies of which are
Ex.D8/A and D8/B, ASI Ranjit Singh was not present
in the police Station during the time of inspection
of car but he has been shown to be on patrolling.

164 No entry in the malkhana register
regarding the custody of the car has been brought
on the record. No DDR has been recorded to show the
inspection of the Car by the CBI in Police Station
as required under the rules. As such the recovery
of the car from the spot is highly doubtful.

165 Not even this, the plea of the prosecution

290

that some of the finger prints lifted from the car
were found to be that of accused Lakhwinder Singh
and Balwant Singh as per PW-178, S.K.Chadha is also
not proved on the file. First of all it is admitted
case of the prosecution that both the accused
Lakhwinder Singh and Balwant Singh were constable
in the Punjab Police and as such the prosecution
was having admitted specimen signatures and hand
writings of both these accused persons as well as
their finger prints and the same can be got
compared with the chance prints lifted from the
alleged car but no such recourse was taken by the
prosecution. On the contrary, it is alleged that
the specific finger prints of Lakhwinder Singh and
Balwanit Singh were taken by PW-178 and then those
were compared with the disputed prints lifted from
the spot but again the taking of specimen finger
prints is not proved on the file as per the
requirements of the law.

166 To substantiate this plea, he submitted

that it is admitted case of the prosecution that
all the finger prints of both these accused person
is were taken without their consent and even
without the permission of any Magistrate as
required under the law and as such these finger
prints can not be made basis to link these accused
persons with the car. In support of this plea, he
has relied upon AIR 1997 Supreme Court page 2960.

291

167 At the same time, there is no evidence on
the file that these finger prints were of accused
Lakhwinder Singh and Balwant Singh as there is no
evidence on the file to show that these were taken
either by PW-178, S.K.Chadha himself or in his
presence .

168 Not even this, the report of PW-178,
S.K.Chadha as to the comparison of the chance
finger prints with the admitted finger prints of
both the accused persons and matching the same is
highly doubtful because it is admitted case of PW-
178 that the admitted finger prints of accused
Balwant Singh is of whorl type. Whereas the
disputed chance print were not of this type as
these were fragmentary. Similarly the pattern of
finger prints of accused Lakhwinder Singh was found
to be of double loop composite type whereas the
chance prints were found to be of different pattern
and if the pattern of both the thumb impressions
were not the same, there was no guestion of saying
that these matches with the chance print taken from
the car.

169 In support of this plea, they relied upon
smt.Kamla Kanwar Versus Rattan Lai, AIR 1971
Allahabad page 304, wherein it was held by the
Hon'ble High Court that to compare the thumb
impression first of all the pattern should be
examined and if the pattern are different it is

292

conclusive proof that the impressions are of
different persons and only if the pattern matches
with the disputed the core and delta should be
located. Accordingly in the present case once the
pattern of both the disputed and the admitted
finger prints were found to be of different
patterns, there is no question of saying that these
are similar to each other. Thus, even the report of
PW-178, S.K.Chadha, Finger Print Expert,
Ex.PW178/5, proves in vain to match the finger
prints with that of accused Balwant Singh and
Lakhwinder Singh.

170 Accordingly he submitted that the entire
story of the prosecution that the accused
Lakhwinder Singh, was also present at the
Secretariat along with accused Balwant Singh and
Dilawar Singh for the purpose of bomb blast is
highly doubtful and can not be made basis to link
these accused persons with this offence.

171 Learned defence counsel further submitted
that one of the other material circumstances put
forward by the prosecution to link the accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh Tara, (since
proclaimed offender) , with the case in hand is that
both of them purchased Car bearing registration No.
DBA-9598 from PW-32, S.K.Dutta and at that time
accused Jagtar Singh Tara represented himself as
Basant Singh and that car was brought to Chandigarh

293

and after repainting the same in white colour, the
same was used by accused Jagtar Singh Tara,
Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh to reach Punjab and
Haryana Civil Secretariat to hit the target.
However, the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove both these facts with cogent and reliable
evidence. On the contrary, there are so many
circumstances which shows that even if it is
presumed that the car in question has been used in
the commission of crime, there is no evidence to say
that it was purchased by accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara and Jagtar Singh Tara.

172 Before submitting further, learned defence
counsel submitted that accused Jagtar Singh Tara is
now a proclaimed offender as such, the alleged
confession of Jagtar Singh Tara can not be taken
into consideration either against him or against
any of the remaining accused persons, as per law
laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eshar Singh
Vs. State of Andhara Pradesh, AIR 2004, S.C. Page
3030.

173 To substantiate this plea, he submitted
that it is admitted case of the prosecution that
wife of PW-32, S.K.Dutta was the registered owner
of the Car DBA-9598 and the CBI got the information
on 31.8.1995 itself that this car has been used in
the commission of the crime and accordingly Delhi
Police was asked to trace the whereabouts of the

294

registered owner and took further steps. It is
further admitted that 1.9.1995 itself the Police
came to know that PW-32 is the owner of the Car and
he was associated in the investigations of the case
by Shri G.N.Gupta, DSP but there is no explanation
on the file that why the said G.N.Gupta has not
been examined as a witness of the prosecution.

174 In addition to this, it is also admitted

case of the prosecution that from 1.9.1995 to
3.9.1995, PW-32 was interrogated by the Delhi
Police but he was never asked to give the details
of the persons to whom he sold the car and to
produce the documents in support of that. It was
only on 16.9.1995, when PW-32 was called upon to
hand over the documents and this date was
intentionally introduced because prior to that the
accused Jagtar Singh Tara was already arrested on
13.9.1995 and the documents of the car, Ex.PW32/l
to Ex.PW32/7 were not existing between 1.9.1995 to
20.9.1995 and those were fabricated after the
arrest of accused Jagtar Singh Tara and then shown
to have been produced by PW-32 on 20.9.1995. There
is no explanation on the file as to why PW-32 has
not produced all the documents relating to the
alleged sale of the car to Jagtar Singh Tara on
1.9.1995 itself. Even G.N.Gupta who has recorded
the statement of S.K.Dutta has not been examined to
explain this fact.

295

175 At the same time, it is also proved on
the file that PW-32, S.K.Dutta was residing in a
Flat of Sahirdya Apartments and a visitor register
was being maintained at the entry gate of the
colony but that register has not been taken into
possession to show that somebody has visited
S.K.Dutta on the alleged day and time. Even when
this record was summoned in the defence, it was not
produced by the concerned colony alleging that it
was never maintained at the relevant time. On the
contrary DW-20, P.K.Ghosh, the present member of
the society, admitted that at present a visitor
register is being maintained. Thus this fact
further shows that the said register has been
suppressed intentionally as none of the accused
ever visited the house of PW-32, S.K.Dutta.

176 At the same time, both these accused
persons have been linked with the case on the
basis of identity of the photographs by PW-32,
S.K.Dutta, which is of no conseguences because the
identity by photographs is not admissible as
evidence as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Laxmi Pat Choaria Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1968, Supreme Court, page 938 where the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that the ability of the witness to
identity a suspect should be tested without showing
his photographs or furnishing him any other fact
for identification and if the photographs of the
suspect is already shown before the identification,

296

such an identification is worthless.

177 As such, he submitted that the identity of
the photographs by PW-32 is also not relevant and
can be made basis to link these accused persons. At
the same time, no test identification parade was
conducted to establish the identity of the accused
Jagtar Singh Tara from PW-32, S.K.Dutta as required
under the law. PW-244, R.S.Dhankar, who has
arrested the accused Jagtar Singh Tara, admitted
that he was not even aware about the identity of
S.K.Dutta, when he arrested the accused, Jagtar
Singh Tara on 13.9.1995 and only on 13.9.1995 he
came to know about this fact and if it was so it
was his duty to associate S.K.Dutta for the
identity of the accused Jagtar Singh Tara. At the
same time, the alleged pointing out of the house of
PW-32, S.K.Dutta by accused Jagtar Singh Tara as
per his alleged disclosure statement is not
admissible being against the provision of Section
27 of the Evidence Act.

178 At the same time, it is alleged that two
independent witnesses were associated during the
pointing out of the house of PW-32, however,
signatures of none of these witnesses were taken
on the pointing out memo which further shows that
the said pointing memo is of no consequence and can
not be made basis to link the accused Jagtar Singh
Tara with the purchase of car. As far as the

297

identity of accused Jagtar Singh Tara and Jagtar
Singh Hawara in the court is concerned that is also
of no consequence as PW-32 has identified these
accused persons in the court for the first time and
as such this fact is also not admissible in
evidence .

179 Last but not least, he submitted that no
document whatsoever has been recovered from the
possession of the accused Jagtar Singh Tara to show
that he had purchased the Car, DBA-9598 from PW-32
and as stated earlier no independent witness was
joined during the alleged pointing out of the house
of PW-32 by accused Jagtar Singh Tara, from the
neighbourhood of that colony and even R.S.Dhankar
failed to explain whether there was any watchman in
the colony and whether he had joined any other
witness of the colony. Not even this, he had also
not recorded the statement of any of the two
witnesses allegedly joined during the pointing out
of the house of PW-32, which clearly shows that
none of these witnesses were actually present at
the time of alleged identification and false story
has been put forward.

180 At the same time, PW-244 has failed to
explain how he came to know about the name and
identity of accused Jagtar Singh Tara. At one point
of time he alleged that he arrested Jagtar Singh
Tara on the information given by Chief

298

Investigating Officer S.K.Saxena, however,
Sh . S . K . Saxena has denied this fact and if it is so
there is no link evidence on the file to show how
the name of Jagtar Singh Tara comes on the record
and how he has arrested. Thus, this fact further
shows all the proceedings of the C.B.I regarding
the arrest of Jagtar Singh Tara and his link with
the car are fabricated and manipulated just to
falsely implicate him in this case and this
circumstance can not be taken into consideration
for any purpose whatsoever.

181 He further submitted that the
identification of accused Jagtar Singh Hawara by
PW-32 by way of his photo graph, Ex.PW32/9, is also
of no consequences as stated earlier. Thus, the
presence and identity of accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara along with Jagtar Singh Tara is also highly
doubtful .

182 Learned defence counsel further submitted
that since the entire case of the prosecution was
based on circumstantial evidence, as such, the
prosecution was required to prove the proper
custody of the incriminating evidence collected
from the scene of crime and the case property till
it reaches the experts, to rely upon the reports of
the experts. To substantiate this plea, he
submitted that during the course of cross
examination of 240 to 248, who have investigated

299

the case at one stage or other, it is undisputed
case of the prosecution that samples of
incriminating articles recovered from the spot
change hands from one person to other person and
from one place to other place and the entire case
property right from the stage of recovery till it
reaches at the hands of experts remains in the
possession of different persons at different places
and if it was so it was the duty of the prosecution
to prove the proper custody and intactness of the
case property to complete the link evidence to link
the accused persons with the commission of the
crime and factum of conspiracy.

183 However, the prosecution has miserably
failed to bring any link evidence on the file to
prove the proper custody and intactness of the said
articles during the investigation till the time it
was deposited with the police officials and then
till the time it was deposited with the experts.

184 He further submitted that as held by
Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Daulat
Ram, AIR 1980 Supreme Court, page 1314 and as
reiterated by Punjab & Haryana High Court in Om
Parkash Vs. State of Haryana, 1999 (1) RCR Criminal
page 771; and Balwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab,
1997 (4) RCR Criminal page 824, that where the
prosecution has failed to examine all those various
persons with whom the case property remain during

300

the investigation and trial the identity of such
case property becomes doubtful and it can not be
considered to convict the accused.

185 Accordingly in the present case, it is
admitted case of prosecution that as and when any
incriminating articles were recovered either from
the scene of crime or from the accused persons
those were deposited in the malkhana of Chandigarh
Police or in the CBI malkhana and thereafter those
articles were sent to various experts and if it was
so, it was the duty of the prosecution to examine
all those witnesses, who were concerned with the
custody of the case property from the stage of its
recovery till it reaches the experts.

186 He further submitted that in this case,
it is admitted case of PW-240, Nanha Ram, the first
Investigating Officer of Chandigarh Police, and PW-
248, S.N.Saxena that the entire incriminating
articles recovered from the spot were deposited in
the malkhana but both of them had failed to explain
the place of that malkhana and the name of that
person. No witness have been examined and no
affidavit of any such witness has been brought on
the record to show the depositing of case property
and its intactness till it remained in their
possession. The incriminating articles taken into
possession vide seizure memo, Ex.PW228/l on
2.9.1995 were deposited with the CFSL on 21.9.1995

301

but there is no evidence on the file to show where
these articles remained from 3.9.1995 to 21.9.1995
and who took these articles to the expert and in
what manner.

187 Similarly, no evidence has been brought
on the file to prove the identity of the seals used
for sealing those articles. During the trial case
property was produced by the MHC, Police Station
North Chandigarh, which is now Sector 3, Chandigarh
but it is undisputed case of the prosecution that
the case was investigated by the CBI and if it was
so the property should have been kept in the
malkhana of CBI Police Station.

188 Similarly, there is no evidence on the
file to show that during the time the case property
were examined by various experts where it remains
and with whom. If it is the factual position, none
of the incriminating articles relied upon by the
prosecution in support of its story and can be
taken into consideration to link any of the accused
persons with this case and the case of the
prosecution is liable to be disbelieved on this
aspect alone and it further shows that no real
investigations were conducted and the entire case
is framed by the prosecution after the arrest of
the accused persons for which the benefit of doubt
must be given to the accused persons .

302

189. As far as the expert evidence is
concerned, the learned defence counsel submitted
that as stated earlier the report of none of the
experts examined by the prosecution is admissible
in evidence. To substantiate this plea, he
submitted that one of the reports relied upon by
the prosecution is, Ex.PW248/2, report of
Dr.Balinder Kaur, who has allegedly inspected the
scene of crime and took into possession certain
incriminating articles and then examined the same.
However, there is no evidence on the file to prove
that this expert ever visited the scene of crime
or lifted anything from the spot. No doubt, it is
alleged by the prosecution that immediately after
the occurrence Experts of FSL Punjab, CFSL Delhi
and CFSL Chandigarh were called at the spot to
assess the scene of crime and one of those experts
was Doctor Balinder Kaur, who allegedly reached at
the spot at 10.30 a.m on 01.9.1995, when she
examined the spot and took into possession the
articles in the presence of SI Ved Parkash.
However, no recovery memo showing the recovery of
incriminating articles by this witness has been
prepared to show what was picked by her from the
spot, how it was picked and how it was packed and
where it was kept.

190. It is admitted case of the prosecution
that PWs 175 to 179 were the Police officials of
Chandigarh Police, who were present at the spot

303

from 31.8.1995 to 3.9.1995 but none of those
witnesses have stated that Balinder Kaur inspected
the spot. As per PW-179, SI Ved Parkash, he
deposited 27 incriminating articles lifted from the
spot with CFSL, Chandigarh at about 11.00 a.m,
whereas PW-248, Chief Investigating Officer stated
that the recovery proceedings were started in the
after noon only if it was so how PW-179 was present
at the spot and how some incriminating articles
were lifted at the spot is a fact which remain
unexplained on the file and it shows that report of
Balinder Kaur is not admissible in evidence. Even
she had failed to step into the witness box to
prove this report and to face cross examination as
to the recovery of the incriminating articles and
the inspection of the scene of the crime. Thus,
this evidence is a waste paper and liable to be
ignored .

191. He further submitted that one of the

circumstantial evidence relied upon by the
prosecution is the recovery of belt, Ex.P97 and its
link with the accused Balwant Singh and deceased
Dilawar Singh. However, the recovery of belt is
highly doubtful. To substantiate this plea, he
submitted that it is alleged by the prosecution
that on 10.9.1995, DSP Devi Singh has recovered the
Scooter from Pritam Cycle Stand, Bus Stand, Patiala
in the presence of PW-90, D.P.Singh and PW-91, Ram
Singh and on search of the dickey, belt, Ex.P97,was

304

recovered and this belt was same belt which was got
stitched by accused Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh
from PW-75, Jasbir Singh.

192. However, the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove this fact on the file. First of
all, DSP Devi Singh, who has recovered this belt
has not been examined for the reason known to the
Police. At the same time, it is alleged that this
belt was sent to CFSL on 10.10.1995 despite the
fact that it was recovered on 10.9.1995. Where it
remained for the period 10.09.1995 to 10.10.1995
and with whom is a fact, which remained unexplained
on the file. No witness of any malkhana has been
examined to prove the custody of this belt and its
intactness. As such, this evidence is also
inadmissible and can not be considered for any
purpose whatsoever.

193. He further submitted that similarly
recovery of the battery Ex.P153 from the Car No.
DBA-9598 has also no relevancy with this case as it
was neither sealed nor it has any concern with the
factual aspect of the case. On the contrary, the
entire case of the prosecution is that on 1.9.1995
a remote control device has been used for the blast
and it has been recovered from the spot and this
fact was duly published in the news paper "The
Tribune" dated 1.9.1995, copy of which is,
Ex . PW240/D-A, as well as in "Hindustan Times" but

305

that remote control device has not been made part
of the record and as such report of the expert, PW
165, exhibited as PW 165/4, as to the battery, is
also an inadmissible piece of evidence.

194. Similarly, he further submitted that the
report of PW-160, R.S.Verma, Ex.PW160/l as to the
traces of the RDX on the articles recovered from
the house of accused Gurmit Singh is also not
admissible in evidence as the recovery of these
articles is highly doubtful. To substantiate this
plea, he submitted that it is alleged by the
prosecution that on 8.9.1995 when the search of the
room of accused Gurmit Singh was conducted, some
incriminating articles including card board, news
paper etc were recovered in the presence of PW-160,
R.S.Verma and some other witnesses. But the
recovery memo of the alleged proceeding, Ex.PW68/B
is not signed by Dr . R. S . Verma, which shows that he
was not at all present during these recovery
proceedings .

195. Similarly report of PW-165, Roop Singh,
Ex.PW165/5, showing the presence of traces of RDX
on the news paper pieces, which, is Article-Ex . P88,
is also inadmissible because it is admitted case of
PW 165, Roop Singh that this article was received
by him on 8.11.1995 and there is no evidence on the
file to show that where it remains from 8.9.1995
to 8.11.1995 and with whom. Not even this, the

306

report, Ex.PW165/l, regarding examination of 27
parcels is also not admissible in evidence as these
articles were received in CFSL Delhi on 21.9.1995
despite the fact that these were recovered from the
spot on 3.9.1995 and there is no evidence as to
where these articles remain during this period that
to as intact.

196. Learned defence counsel further submitted

that the main plank of the arguments of learned
Public Prosecutors is that the conspiracy of this
case was hatched by Wadhawa Singh and Mehal Singh
in Pakistan and to prove this fact the prosecution
has relied upon documents Ex.P134 to Ex.P150.
However, there is not even iota of evidence on the
file to prove this fact. None of 248 witnesses of
prosecution could even say single word showing the
involvement of Pakistan in this crime in any manner
either directly or indirectly. Even none of the
Investigating Officers of the prosecution has given
even passing remarks on this aspect.

197. On the contrary, from the evidence led by

the prosecution, if at all any conspiracy is put
forward it is alleged that it has been hatched in
Norway, England, Germany and Canada. There is no
evidence on the file that accused Wadhawa Singh and
Mehal Singh are based in Pakistan. On the contrary
the entire evidence of the prosecution suggests
that this conspiracy was either made by accused

307

Balwant Singh personally to kill Beant Singh, for
which he took the help of accused Harjit Singh.
Even in the confession of Jagtar Singh Tara, it is
alleged that accused Paramjit had told him that
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara came from Pakistan and
told to kill Beant Singh without mentioning
anything about the involvement of Pakistan or its
role .

198. At the same time, all the prosecution
witnesses examined to link the accused persons with
this conspiracy including PW-63, Avtar Singh,
landlord of accused Gurmeet Singh, PW-121, STD
booth owner of Ghaziabad, PW-122, Bhupinder Singh
PCO owner, PW-123, Harvinder Singh, PW-124, PW-125,
PW-127, PW-130, PW-132, PW-133, PW-134, PW-135, PW-
136 and PW-140 have alleged that all the calls made
by the accused persons were either to Germany or
Norway or UK and no call was ever made to Pakistan,
which further shows that the entire story of the
prosecution as to hatching of conspiracy in
Pakistan is baseless.

199. The testimony of PW-100, Dilbagh Singh,
who brought the copies of documents, Ex.P134 to
Ex.P150, is of no conseguences as no source of
these documents have been brought on the file and
as such these documents have not been proved on
the file as per the requirement of law. No author
of these documents has come forward to prove its

308

contents . On the contrary these documents are the
copies of some documents and it is admitted case of
PW-100, Dilbagh Singh that he had not kept any
record as to the source of these documents and he
also admitted that he has no information from where
these documents were received and from what
channel .

200. If it is so, the entire testimony of PW-
100 is based on hearsay and as such is not
admissible in evidence as settled by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Sakattar Singh Vs. State of Haryana,
2004 (11) Supreme Court Cases, page 291, where the
Hon'ble Apex court held that where the statement of
witness is based not on his personal knowledge but
he heard from others it is not admissible.
Similarly in Smt.Kunti Devi Vs. Radhey Sham, AIR,
1978 Allahabad, page 185, the Hon'ble Allahabad
High Court held that the mere fact are that the
documents are forthcoming from a Govt Department
and bear its seal will not dispense with the
necessity of formally proving those documents.
Similar Principle was reiterated by the Calcutta
High Court in Kamal Kanto Dass Versus The State,
AIR 1959 Calcutta, Page 342 and a full Bench of
Rajasthan Hon'ble High Court in Sabir Mohd Versus
State of Rajasthan, 1996 (2)RCR page 23.

201. Similarly he further submitted that it is
alleged by the prosecution that Babbar Khalsa

309

International is a terrorist organization based in
Pakistan and it hatched this conspiracy. However,
no notification etc as issued under the provision
of Unlawful Activity Preventions Act, 1967 has been
brought on the file to show that it has been
declared as a unlawful organization and banned. At
the same time, there is no evidence on the file to
show that accused Jagtar Singh Hawara was the
member of this organization.

202. Similarly the statements of PW-35 and PW-

38, who brought the copies of the fax message mark
AAA, DDD and EEE is also not admissible in
evidence, to prove this fact as no source of these
fax messages have been proved on the file nor these
were verified by the CBI to confirm its source and
authenticity. The testimony of PW-207 and PW-209 to
identify the signatures of Wadhawa Singh and Mehal
Singh is also highly doubtful as the original
documents are not shown to them and it is not
possible for them to identify the hand writing and
signatures after a gap of 25 years. At the same
time, it is admitted case of PW-241, Surinder Pal
Singh, DSP that the original record of society with
the signatures of accused Wadhawa Singh were
available but those were not taken into possession,
as such there is no direct evidence on the file to
prove the association of both these witnesses PW-
207 and PW-209 with Wadhawa Singh and Mehal Singh
and as such this plea of prosecution is also not

310

admissible and liable to be discarded.

203 Lastly learned defence counsel took up the

case of each of the accused persons one by one
facing trial before this court and submitted that
there is no evidence on the file to prove that any
of the accused persons facing trial in this case
except accused Balwant Singh have been linked with
the factum of conspiracy and are thus liable to be
acquitted .

204. To substantiate this plea first of all

learned counsel for the accused took up the case of
accused Navjot Singh and submitted that only
evidence against this accused is on the basis of
disclosure statement of accused Jagtar Singh Tara,
who alleged that some part of the RDX brought by
Jagtar Singh Hawara was kept in the house of
accused Navjot Singh. And when the accused Navjot
Singh was arrested and his house was searched,
although no recovery of any contraband article was
made but some literature was recovered which shows
that he was part and parcel of this conspiracy.
However, prosecution has failed to bring any cogent
evidence to prove that this accused was ever
associated with any of the other accused persons
for the commission of this offence and he was
having any concern with this offence.

205 To bring home this fact, learned counsel

311

for the accused Navjot Singh submitted that PW-242,
R.S.Dhankar, Investigating Officer, who has

arrested the accused Navjot Singh, alleged that he
arrested the accused as per the directions of the
Chief Investigating Officer, on the basis of the
evidence collected on the file and on the basis of
disclosure statement made by accused Jagtar Singh
Tara on 13.9.1995. However, PW-248, S.N.Saxena
admitted that only PW-244, R.S.Dhankar knows about
the evidence against Navjot Singh and he had not
given any search warrant or authorization to
R.S.Dhankar to arrest and search the house of the
accused Navjot Singh, whereas PW-244 alleged that
he did so as per the authorization of Chief
Investigating Officer PW-248. In view of this,
there is no explanation on the file as to how the
accused Navjot Singh was linked with this case.

206 At the same time, it is admitted case of

PW-248, S.N.Saxena that on the day, when the
accused Navjot Singh was arrested he was at
Chandigarh and if it is so why he himself has not
arrested the accused and why he had not verified
the evidence against the accused to ascertain his
arrest are some of the facts which remain
unexplained. In support of his plea, he has relied
upon Balak Ram and another versus State of U.P
reported in 1974 Cri. L.J. 1486

207. At the same time, it is undisputed case of

312

PW-244 that while conducting raid, in the house of
accused Navjot Singh, no independent witness either
from the locality or from any where else was
associated as reguired under the provision of
Section 100, Sub-Section 4 of the Cr.P.C. Even the
provision of Section 165 of the Cr.P.C regarding
recording of satisfaction of search without taking
warrant and forwarding the same to the Magistrate,
within 24 hours, have not been complied in this
case as admitted by PW-244 and PW-248.

208 No doubt PW-248, Chief Investigating

Officer, is competent to authorize his

subordinates for doing so but he is also reguired
to record his reasons but in this case no such
reasons have been brought on the record with a
specific order giving authority to PW-244. Not
even this, even the local police of Mohali was not
associated during the raid and was not even
informed as reguired under the provision of 166 Sub
Section 2 of the Cr.P.C.

209 Above all PW-244 during the cross

examination admitted that when he arrested the
accused Navjot Singh, there was no link evidence
against him except the information provided by
accused Jagtar Singh Tara. If it is so, there was
no guestion of conducting any raid as the
confession of the co-accused can not be utilized as
evidence for any purpose whatever as held by the

313

Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Rashid Gafur Versus
State of Maharashtra, 1985 (1) RCR, Criminal, Page
186, where the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held
that statement of co-accused can not be utilized
for the purpose of conclusion or inference to hold
that a prima facie case is made out against some
other accused and the provision of Section 30 of
the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable in such
a case.

210. Accordingly he submitted that in view of

the above settled proposition of law, it is clear
that there was not even a iota of evidence on the
file with the prosecution to link the accused with
this offence or with the conspiracy. He further
submitted that the other material circumstance
alleged against the accused Navjot Singh to link
him with this case is that during the search some
writings, Ex.PW91/23, Ex.PW91/25, Ex.PW91/27,
Ex.PW91/29 and Ex.PW91/46 were recovered from the
house of accused, in which the accused has
allegedly mentioned some facts which shows that he
was the part and parcel of the conspiracy. Apart
from this, it is admitted case of the prosecution
that no RDX or any incriminating article was
recovered from the possession of the accused after
the search of his house. As such, the guestion
remains whether these documents are sufficient to
link the accused with this offence as a
conspirator .

314

211 However, first of all the prosecution has
failed to prove that the incriminating writings are
in the hands of accused Navjot Singh as the
material witnesses of the prosecution on this
aspect PW-91, PW-92 and PW-94, who have been
examined by the prosecution to identify the hand
writing of the accused, have failed to identify the
hand writing of the accused on those disputed
documents, although, they identified his hand
writing on the admitted documents and other
documents .

212 Even otherwise, even if it is presumed for
a moment that these literature is in the hands of
accused Navjot Singh, how it smacks, what to call
of showing his involvement in the conspiracy, is a
question which has not been explained on the file.
Simply because of the fact that in the writing it
is mentioned that blood will flow in the ' Satluj
Yamuna Link Canal' instead of water and is of
Beant, it can not be said that this evidence is
sufficient to link him with the conspiracy and its
consequences .

213 Learned defence counsel submitted that in
Indira Gandhi's murder case reported as AIR 1988
Supreme Court, page 1888, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has considered this aspect and held that conspiracy
on the basis of incriminating documents can not be

315

inferred, unless it is shown that some active role
in any manner was played by that accused.

214. Similarly, in Balwant Singh and another

Versus State of Punjab, AIR 1995, Supreme Court,
page 1785, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that
raising of some lonesome slogans, a couple of times
by two individuals, without anything more, did not
constitute any threat to the Government of India as
by, law established nor could the same give rise to
feelings of enmity or hatred among different
communities or religious of other groups.

215 Similarly, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court

in Arvindu Versus State of Kerala, 1985 Criminal
Law Journal page 1259, reiterated the same
principle. Accordingly in the present case, the
recovery of literature is not sufficient to link
the accused Navjot Singh with the conspiracy.

216. He further submitted that as per PW-

91, who was a co-employee of the accused Navjot
Singh, the documents Ex.PW91/l to Ex.PW91/22 are in
the hand writings of accused Navjot Singh and also
bears his signatures. However, when disputed
documents i.e diary containing incriminating
writings exhibited as PW91/23 to Ex.PW91/25, along
with three loose sheets containing similar
writings, exhibited as PW91/26 to PW91/30, were put
to this witness, he stated that he is not sure

316

whether these writings are in the hands of accused
Navjot Singh. To the same effect is the testimony
of PW-92, Gurpreet Singh, another co-employee of
accused Navjot Singh. He has also failed to
identify the disputed hand writings to be in the
hands of accused. As such, the prosecution has
failed to link the accused Navjot Singh with the
incriminating writings and to show that these
writings are sufficient to link him with the
conspiracy .

217. The prosecution has alleged that PW-109,
Inderjit Singh, PW-184, Amarjit Kaur, PW-117, Gian
Singh and PW-132, Jagjit Singh alleged that accused
Navjot Singh was a member of Anand Kirtani Jatha
and he along with accused Paramjit Singh and
Jagroop Singh once disclosed that they are going to
kill Beant Singh. However, all these four
witnesses have not supported this version of the
prosecution and even if it is presumed that these
witnesses were knowing accused Navjot Singh, it
itself is not sufficient to say that he was also
involved in the conspiracy because apart from the
disclosure statement of accused Jagtar Singh Tara,
none of the other witnesses of the prosecution have
ever named the accused Navjot Singh in any way.

218. Thus as such, as stated by DW-3, R.S.Bajwa
a retired Army Man and neighborer of the accused
Navjot Singh and his father DW-5, Tirlok Singh, the

317

accused Navjot Singh has been falsely implicated as
he was taken away from his house and tortured to
become a witness and when he refused to oblige the
CBI, he was named as a conspirator without being
there any evidence.

219. Not even this, the accused Navjot Singh

was also arrested by Delhi Police in a case of
sedition. But as per the judgment, copy of which
is Ex.DW4/A, he was acquitted by the Delhi Court
with the observation that he has been falsely
implicated. Even DW-4, Mokham Singh, who was a co-
accused with accused Navjot Singh in Delhi case,
deposed that when the accused Navjot Singh was
produced at Delhi he was tortured and when he
asked accused Navjot Singh, he disclosed him that
he is being forced to become witness and thus this
fact further shows that this accused has been
falsely implicated in this case. Above all in none
of the confession made by all the remaining accused
persons it is mentioned that this accused was also
associated in this conspiracy. As such, the
commutative effect of all these facts and
circumstances is that prosecution has miserably
failed to link this accused with this conspiracy
and if it is so, he is entitled for benefit of
doubt as no overt act is attributed to him except
that he was part of conspiracy. Accordingly, he
prayed that this accused is liable to be acquitted.

318

220. The learned defence counsel then took up
the case of accused Nasib Singh and submitted that
this accused has also been falsely implicated in
this case only on the basis of disclosure statement
of accused Jagtar Singh Tara and recovery of the
RDX has been shown from him just to link him with
this case without there being any evidence to show
that he was ever associated in the conspiracy to
kill Beant Singh at any stage.

221. To substantiate his case, he submitted
that it is undisputed case of the prosecution that
in all the disclosure statement of accused persons
only the name of accused Balwant Singh, Dilawar
Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh Tara
were mentioned but the name of accused Nasib Singh
and Navjot Singh was never mentioned. On the
contrary, he has been linked only on the basis of
the disclosure statements of accused Jagtar Singh
Tara, which is not sufficient evidence, to prove
his link with this offence or the conspiracy.

222. Not even this, as is clear from the
disclosure statement of accused Jagtar Singh Tara,
Ex.PW80/l, he only disclosed that he can identify
the place and the house from where accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara has brought RDX without naming the
accused Nasib Singh as owner of the house or
without disclosing his identity in any manner. If
it is so, the disclosure statement of the accused

319

Jagtar Singh Tara was not sufficient to arrest the
accused or to link him with this conspiracy. As
such, there is no evidence on the file to show how
the name of accused Nasib Singh surfaced in the
case and how he was arrested.

223. At the same time, it is alleged by the
prosecution that after the arrest of the accused
Nasib Singh, he suffered a disclosure statement,
Ex.PW81/l admitting that some RDX has been
concealed in his house by the accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara and he can get it recovered and this
disclosure statement was recorded in the presence
of Raghubir Singh, then Sarpanch of Village
Jhingran Kalan and Naib Singh Ex-Sarpanch and
thereafter recovery of RDX was made in the presence
of both these witnesses.

224. However, Naib Singh has not been examined
whereas Raghubir Singh, who has appeared as PW 81,
has categorically deposed that accused Nasib Singh
never made any disclosure statement in his presence
to the CBI nor he got recovered the RDX from his
fodder room. On the contrary, he alleged that when
he was called the RDX was already lying there and
this fact clearly proves that a false recovery of
RDX from the possession of accused has been shown
to link him with this case.

225. Not even this, it is admitted case of PW-

320

243, A.P.Singh, who has arrested the accused Jagtar
Singh Tara and recorded his disclosure statement,
Ex.PW80/l that two witnesses P.K.Sinha and Kirpal
Singh of BSNL were present but both these witnesses
were not taken to Village Jhingran Kalan to arrest
the accused Nasib Singh and to recover the RDX and
there is no explanation on the file. Apart from
this the other private witnesses has not supported
this theory of the prosecution.

226. At the same time, PW-243, A.P.Singh
admitted that immediately after going to the house
of accused Nasib Singh, on the identification of
accused Jagtar Singh Tara, he arrested accused
Nasib Singh and interrogated him and accused Nasib
Singh disclosed that one bag of explosive has been
kept concealed in his cattle shed on the asking of
Jagtar Singh Hawara and all this was done without
arresting the accused Nasib Singh and if it is so
the disclosure statement made by the accused Nasib
Singh without his arrest is not admissible in
evidence. At the same time, from the cross
examination of PW-243, it further comes out that he
never visited the house of accused, Nasib Singh as
he knows nothing about the situation of the house,
its direction, the name of the neighbourers etc and
as such it shows that accused Nasib Singh has been
falsely implicated.

227. Not even this, one more fact which falsify

321

the story of the prosecution qua accused Nasib
Singh is that PW-248 admitted that he directed PW-
243, A.P.Singh to arrest the accused Nasib Singh
and recover the RDX, as per the facts disclosed by
Jagtar Singh Tara and he also handed over accused
Jagtar Singh Tara to him. If it was so, there was
no occasion to record disclosure statement of
accused Jagtar Singh Tara or Nasib Singh as it was
already in the notice of the Police that RDX is
lying in the house of accused Nasib Singh whereas
Jagtar Singh Tara in his disclosure statement has
no where named the accused Nasib Singh as the owner
of the house, from where accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara has brought the RDX. This fact further shows
that the alleged recovery of RDX on the basis of
disclosure statement is not proved as per the
requirements of the law and the testimony of PW 243
alone is not sufficient to convict the accused
Nasib Singh for the offence of conspiracy specially
when none of the prosecution witnesses including PW
243 or PW-248, Chief Investigating Officer have
stated single word that the accused Nasib Singh was
part and parcel of the conspiracy or that he kept
RDX in his house knowing that it is being used for
the murder of Beant Singh.

228. In support of his arguments, he has also

relied upon Bhagwan Dass Versus State of Haryana,
1970, C.L.R Punjab & Haryana High Court, page 156;
and Jarnail Singh Versus State of Punjab in 2005

322

(3) RCR (Criminal) page 314; Deva Versus State of
Raj as than AIR, 1999 Supreme Court 214; State of U.T
Versus Rakesh Kumar and another 2002 (3) RCC, page
472; Vidyamati Vs. The State AIR (38) 1951 Himachal
Pradesh, page 83; and Aher Raja Khima Versus State
of Saurashtra AIR 1956 S.C. 217.

229. One more lacuna pointed out by learned
defence counsel creating doubt regarding recovery
of RDX from the house of accused Nasib Singh is
that no site plan of the place of recovery has been
made by PW-243 and there is no explanation on the
file as to why it was not prepared. On the
contrary, it shows that PW-243 never visited the
house of accused Nasib Singh nor made any recovery.
Not even this, it is alleged by the prosecution
that Harpreet Kaur, daughter of accused Nasib
Singh, was present at the time of recovery
proceedings and she was also cited as a witness, as
her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded but she
was not examined by the prosecution at least to
prove the factum of arrest of the accused and
search of his house.

230. Lastly, he submitted that the most
material fact which falsifies the entire case of
the prosecution qua accused Nasib Singh is that as
per PW 243 after the recovery of the RDX the parcel
of the RDX was sealed with the seal specimen of
which is printed on the recovery memo, Ex.PW81/2

323

and also mentioned by PW-165 in his report
Ex.PW165/2 but PW-165 who has examined the parcel
of the RDX to assess its nature and potency
admitted that the RDX parcel was sealed with the
seal of CBI-SIC-II initials and this fact alone
shows that the parcel which was examined by PW-165
was not containing the alleged RDX which was
recovered from the possession of the accused Nasib
Singh as the same was sealed with different seals.

231. At the same time, it is admitted case of

PW-248 that PW-243 after the recovery of the RDX
handed over the parcel to him and he deposited the
parcel of RDX in the malkhana of Police Station,
Chandigarh but no record has been brought on the
file by the prosecution to prove this fact and the
link evidence regarding custody of the contraband
articles till it reaches CFSL is also missing as no
witness has been examined to prove that where the
RDX remained from 18.9.1995 to 21.9.1995, when it
reaches CFSL and in whose custody. Even no
affidavit of any of the Police officials with whom
it remained and who deposited the same with the
CFSL has been brought on the record to prove this
link above all although the sample containing the
RDX reaches CFSL on 21.9.1995 but it was examined
after a period of one month and this incredible
delay in examining the samples by PW-165 further
raises doubt about the authenticity of the version
of the prosecution in this regard. This fact alone

324

shows that report of PW-165, Roop Singh as to the
contents of RDX is relating to some other parcel
and if it is so there is no evidence on the file
that the alleged recovery made from accused Nasib
Singh was actually of RDX and the accused is
entitled to be acquitted on this ground alone.

232. Taking the case of the accused Shamsher
Singh, learned defence counsel submitted that it is
alleged by the prosecution that during the
interrogation of accused Jagtar Singh Tara, the
name of this accused came to the light and his
involvement in the conspiracy was found on the plea
that he along with accused, Jagtar Singh Hawara
brought the RDX from a Village near Indo-Pak Border
near Ajnala in the Truck of PW-107, Sapinder Singh,
bearing registration No. PB-12-A-7947 and kept the
two bags of the RDX in his house at Village Ukasi
and later on this accused admitted the factum of
conspiracy and his involvement in this crime in his
confessional statement, Ex.PW103/G before PW-103,
Dinesh Kumar, then Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
However, during the trial, the prosecution has
failed to prove its story by even any evidence
what to talk of plausible evidence.

233. To substantiate his case, he further
submitted that the prosecution of the accused
Shamsher Singh is on the basis of the confessional
statement, Ex.PW103/G, which was recorded after the

325

filing of the first charge sheet, as is clear from
the supplementary charge sheet submitted against
him. But it is not permissible under the law
because in the earlier charge sheet the name of
this accused was duly mentioned in the list of
accused persons showing him as absconding and if it
was so the filing of subsequent charge sheet on the
basis of further investigations by the prosecution
is not permissible under the provision of Section
173 Sub Section 8 of the Cr.P.C as it is admitted
case of the prosecution that no permission or the
Magistrate or Sessions Court has been taken before
making further investigations leading to filing of
the supplementary challan.

234. In support of his arguments, he relied
upon Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata
Vishwandadha Mahara j , reported in 1999(3) RCR
(Criminal), page 587, Vijay Kumar Versus Kamarudhin
reported in 1999 (2) RCR (Criminal) 262 , 1999 Cri.
L.J. 1294 and Ravikrindi Ramaswamy and another Vs.
State of A.P reported in 2003 (3) Recent Criminal
Reports (Criminal), page 362.

235. He further submitted that even otherwise,
there is no evidence on the file to show the
participation of this accused either in the
conspiracy or in the actual commission of the crime
in any manner. It is alleged by the prosecution
that name of this accused surfaced during the

326

interrogation of accused Jagtar Singh Tara.
However, neither in the disclosure statement of
accused Jagtar Singh Tara nor in his confession
made before the Magistrate, the name of this
accused has been disclosed by the accused Jagtar
Singh Tara. Even in the disclosure statement of
accused Balwant Singh his name has not been figured
as one of the conspirator. On the other hand, both
these accused have named remaining accused persons
except Shamsher Singh, Navjot Singh and Nasib
Singh .

236. Even none of the prosecution witnesses
could name him or give any evidence to link him
either with the conspiracy or with the commission
of the crime. On the contrary, the entire evidence
of the prosecution shows that this accused is
falsely implicated in this case when he refused to
become a witness against accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara etc.

237. To substantiate this plea, he submitted
that this accused was arrested by PW-231, Rajesh
Kumar allegedly from the court of Special Judicial
Magistrate, Patiala but during his cross
examination PW-231 admitted that he has not
arrested accused Shamsher Singh from the court of
Special Magistrate, CBI, Patiala but from the court
of SDM, Patiala and as such the entire story of the
prosecution to show the arrest of the accused

327

Shamsher Singh from CBI Court, Patiala, is proved
to be a false stand. On the contrary, it shows that
accused Shamsher Singh was never arrested nor he
was produced before the CBI Court. But his remand
was obtained without producing him before the CBI
Special Magistrate.

238. At the same time all the safeguards
provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K.Basu's
case (Supra) have not been complied at the time of
the arrest of this accused. Above all, only
incriminating evidence brought on the file by the
prosecution, to link this accused with the case in
hand, is his confessional statement, Ex.PW103/G,
recorded by PW-103.

239. However, the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove that this confessional statement
of the accused is voluntarily made as per the
safeguards provided under the law and it has been
made without any coercion, pressure or threat. In
order to bring home, this plea, he submitted that
there are hundreds of reasons which makes this
confession inadmissible in evidence and some of the
reasons pointed out by learned defence counsel are
as below:-

(a) It is admitted case of the
prosecution that accused, Shamsher Singh
was arrested on 11.12.1995 and he was

328

taken to Delhi after taking his police
remand but despite this his confessional
statement was recorded on 16.12.1995 and
there is no explanation on the file as
to what was done between these five days
and the answer to this question is that as
stated by this accused, he was tortured
and harassed during these five days and
was pressurized to suffer a disclosure
statement and as such this makes the
confessional statement inadmissible in
evidence .

(b) It is admitted case of PW-103,
D . K . Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate that
the accused was produced before him at
11.30 a.m and he recorded his confession
at 3.30 p.m granting him only a time of
four hours to reconcile and think over
which is insufficient keeping in view the
longer custody of the accused with the
Police. As per learned defence counsel,
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarwan Singh
Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported
in AIR 1957, SC 637 laid down certain
provision and safeguards required to be
taken care of while recording the
confessional statement and one of these
safeguard is that at least a period of
24 hours should be given to an accused to

329

think over before recording his
confessional statement besides other
necessary ingredients. However, in

this case, this condition has not been
satisfied which makes the confession
highly doubtful.

c) Similarly the Hon'ble Apex Court further
held that the confession should be
recorded as per High Court rules and
orders which reguires that accused must be
guestioned extensively to assess that
he is making the confession voluntarily
and without any pressure, or threat and
for this certain specific guestion have
been provided but in this case it is
admitted case of PW-103, D.K.Sharma,
Metropolitan Magistrate, that he has not
recorded specific guestion as per the High
Court rules & orders, which further shows
that the confession has been recorded not
as per procedure of law. In support of
this plea, he relied upon Ayyub etc Vs.
State of U.P reported in 2002 (2) RCR
(Criminal) , page

(d) Even PW-103 has not introduced himself
before starting recording his confession,
as such, there is nothing on the file to
show that accused was knowing that he is

330

being produced before a Judicial
Magistrate for recording his statement and
from all the proceedings of the
confession done by PW 103, there is no
mention any where that he is conducting
these proceedings as Metropolitan
Magistrate and no such fact is mentioned
by PW-103, while starting recording the
confession of this accused which further
shows that it has not been recorded as per
the procedure of law and thus not
voluntarily made confession as stated by
this accused, who has retracted from the
same immediately when he came to know
about the same. In support of this plea,
he relied upon Sanatan Badchat Versus The
State, reported as AIR 1953 Orissa page
149

240. He further submitted that it is admitted

case of the prosecution that confessional statement
of an accused can be recorded only during the
course of investigations or thereafter but before
an inquiry or trial. But in the present, the
accused was already charge sheeted and committed to
the trial in the first charge sheet. As such,
recording of his confession during further
investigations is not permissible under the law as
the provision of Section 164 of the Cr.P.C are
applicable only to the confession recorded during

331

the investigations but before the start of inquiry
or trial but in this case, this confession has been
recorded in violation of this provision and as such
this confession is not admissible in evidence.

241. In support of his plea, he relied upon
Rishi and another Vs. State of Bihar, reported in
AIR, 1955 Patna 425, State Vs. Ram Avtar Chaudhry
and others, reported in AIR 1955 Allahabad 138,
Bachchan Lai Vs. The State, reported in AIR 1957
Allahabad 184 and Ram Singh Versus State reported
in AIR 1959 Allahabad 518.

242. Not even this there is no explanation on
the file as to why the production warrant of
accused Shamsher Singh was not obtained for
securing his arrest in this case and why the
permission of Area Magistrate was not obtained and
even if accused Shamsher Singh was arrested from
Patiala, why he was not immediately produced before
CJM, Chandigarh for his further remand despite the
fact that the Chandigarh is situated nearer to
Delhi. On the contrary, it is alleged by PW-243,
that the police remand of the accused Shamsher
Singh was taken from Patiala as it was easily
available there and accused Shamsher Singh was
taken to Delhi without producing him before the
Area Magistrate i.e CJM Chandigarh and if it is so,
the recording of confession of accused without
proper permission of the area Magistrate is bad in

332

law and makes the confession is highly doubtful.
In support of his plea, he has relied upon State of
Rajasthan Vs. Santosh Yadav, reported in 2005 (2)
RCR (Criminal) Recent Criminal Reports, page 303.

243. Even after the filing of the first charge
sheet showing the accused Shamsher Singh as
absconder, the other accused has moved an
application before Sessions Court that accused
Shamsher Singh, is already in the illegal custody
of CBI since September, 1995 and when the CBI came
to know about this application, he was arrested and
was taken to Delhi without their being any evidence
of conspiracy against him. At the same time, it is
admitted case of the prosecution that on
10.12.1995, accused Shamsher Singh was arrested in
FIR No. 127 for harboring accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara but despite this he was also arrested in
this case being a conspirator without there being
any evidence .

244. Even in the application moved by PW-243
for recording the confessional statement of accused
Shamsher Singh, Ex.PWl03/A, it is alleged that the
accused Shamsher Singh had suffered some disclosure
statement but no such disclosure statement has been
made part of the record is a fact which is also not
explained but which shows that there was no
evidence against him.

333

245. He further submitted that even from the
contents of confessional statement, it comes out
that the accused was forced to make the same as he
was under bonafide apprehension that he will be
falsely implicated more seriously by the other
witnesses, which further shows that this confession
is not a voluntarily made confession but it was
with an intention to gain something and to avoid a
lesser evil and thus it can not be relied upon
for any purpose whatsoever and thus should be
discarded .

246. Learned defence counsel further submitted
that it is admitted case of the prosecution that
name of the accused Shamsher Singh surfaced in the
disclosure statement of Jagtar Singh Tara on
13.09.1995, but no efforts were made to arrest
this accused till 11.12.1995. Whereas it is proved
on the file that this accused was arrested by the
Punjab Police on 29.9.1995 itself and he was kept
in illegal custody and after torture and harassment
he was forced to make confession as apart from the
confession, there is no direct or circumstantial
evidence on the file to link him with this case.

247. To substantiate this plea, he submitted
that PW-107, Sapinder Singh, was the star witness
of the prosecution to link this accused with this
conspiracy as it is alleged by the prosecution that
accused Shamsher Singh, took the Truck of PW 107,

334

Sapinder Singh to go to a Village near the Indo-
Pak Border near Ajnala along with the accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara and some other persons.
However, during the trial PW-107 failed to prove
this theory on the file. On the contrary, he has
categorically deposed that he was knowing accused
Shamsher Singh, who is related to him and the CBI
has pressurized him to depose against the accused
about bringing of RDX in his Truck but actually he
never accompanied the accused Shamsher Singh or
Jagtar Singh Hawara with his Truck to bring any
RDX. Although, this witness was declared hostile by
the prosecution and was cross examined at length
but the prosecution has failed to bring out
anything to shatter his testimony which shows the
main plank of the prosecution is false.

248. On the other hand, it is proved on the

file that this witness was arrested by the Police
in a case registered for commission of offences u/s
212 and 216 of the IPC registered vide FIR No. 127
of 1995 in Police Station, Sadar Rajpura by the
Punjab Police on 7.11.1995 but despite this his
statement was recorded in this case only on
15.11.1995. Not even this, it is also proved on the
file that this witness has moved a petition u/s 482
of the Cr.P.C before the Hon'ble High Court against
the harassment by the CBI and when the CBI came to
know about this, his statement was got recorded at
Delhi by pressurising him. At the same time, the

335

two other persons, who allegedly accompanied PW-107
along with Jagtar Singh Hawara and Shamsher Singh,
named as Deva and Dal jit, have not been examined or
even cited as a witness to prove the presence of
this witness and his taking of truck on the asking
of Shamsher Singh, which further shows that this
witness was harassed and forced to depose before
the Magistrate.

249. Even the Truck allegedly used by this

witness for bringing RDX on the asking of Shamsher
Singh has not been taken into possession. Even
there is no explanation on the file that how PW-
243, came to know the name of PW-107, being
concerned with this case and when PW-243 was
confronted on this aspect, he alleged that it was
PW-248, S.N.Saxena, the Chief Investigating Officer
of the case, who directed him to join PW-107 in the
investigations but Mr.Saxena has denied this fact.
At the same time, no legal aid was granted to PW-
107 by PW-108 while recording his statement u/s 164
Cr.P.C. If it is so all these facts & circumstances
shows that, as stated by PW-107, he was harassed
and maltreated and forced to depose against accused
Shamsher Singh. As such, even the testimony of PW-
108 proved in vain to link this accused with the
offence because as stated earlier PW-107 was kept
in illegal custody for about one month and he was
pressurized to suffer a statement against accused
Shamsher Singh before PW-108 as held by the Hon'ble

336

Apex Court in Bolum Bhaskara Rao and another Versus
State of A.P, reported in 1985 Crl.L.J.32

250. He further submitted that as stated
earlier none of the prosecution witnesses stated
anything against this accused to link him with the
conspiracy and the alleged act of omissions and
commissions on his part in bringing the RDX have
not been established on record in view of the stand
taken by PW-107. Besides this, the confession of
this accused is not admissible in evidence and if
it is so there is not even an iota of evidence to
prove that this accused at any point of time had
shared any conspiracy with any of the accused
persons as per the ingredients of law and in
support of his plea, he has relied upon
Dr . Dattatraya Narayan Samant and others Vs. State
of Maharashtra reported in 1982 Cri.L.J. 1025.

251. He further submitted that even in the
authority relied upon by the prosecution in this
regard Shankaria Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1978,
Supreme Court, page 1248, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that where after comparing the confession in
the light of surrounding circumstances and
probabilities coupled with the fact that it was
perfectly voluntary, the Court is satisfied then it
can be relied upon but in this case both these
material facts have not been proved. With these
averments, he submitted that the prosecution has

337

failed to link the accused Shamsher Singh either
with the conspiracy or with the actual commission
of the crime in any manner and as such he is
entitled for benefit of doubt and liable to be
acquitted .

252. Taking the case of accused Gurmeet Singh,
learned counsel for accused submitted that as far
as accused Gurmeet Singh, is concerned, what to
talk of any incriminating evidence against this
accused, there is not even iota of evidence, even
to link this accused with this case.

253. To substantiate this plea, he submitted

that it is undisputed case of the prosecution that
occurrence of this case, which took place on
31.8.1995, was a result of conspiracy which was
hatched between 20.8.1995 to 31.8.1995. However,
there is not even an iota of evidence on the file
which could in any where remotely suggests that
accused Gurmeet Singh was associated during this
period in the conspiracy in any manner.

254. As far as testimony of PWs Avtar Singh,

Puran Chand and SP Singh in this regard is
concerned, it is totally irrelevant as none of
these witnesses has stated anything against the
accused Gurmeet Singh and they have not even
identified him. Although the prosecution tried to
link the accused Gurmeet Singh by way of identity

338

of this accused through photographs but that
identity is not sufficient to link this accused
specially when it is undisputed case of the
prosecution that no test identification parade was
conducted to establish the identity of this accused
from any of the witnesses relied upon by the
prosecution to link him with this case.

255. To substantiate his case he submitted that
it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused
Gurmeet Singh is working in BPL Engineering
Limited, Chandigarh, which is an admitted fact and
he was absent from his duties on 31.8.1995 i.e the
date of occurrence, 1.9.1995,4.9.1995 and 5.9.1995
and during these days, he participated in
commission of this crime. However, the prosecution
has failed to prove this story. PW-67, T . P . Yadav
and PW-64, A.K.Parashar were the two witnesses from
the office, where the Gurmeet Singh, was working
but these witnesses have failed to prove that the
accused was absent on 31.8.1995 and after that.

256. On the contrary, they admitted that
accused Gurmeet Singh was arrested from the Office.
As per PW-67, Gurmeet Singh was on leave on
31.8.1995 and 4.9.1995, as per the leave card,
Ex.PW64/D but that leave card is not signed by the
accused, as reguired under the rules and as
admitted by this witness. On the contrary, it
proves that the date 31.8.1995 has been

339

interpolated by changing the digit 2 to 3. As
regards 4.9.1995 PW-64, A.K.Parashar has admitted
in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C that accused Gurmit
Singh was on duty on 4.9.1995 and as such his stand
in the court that he was absent on 4.9.1995 is an
improvement made on the asking of the CBI.

257. On the contrary, both these witnesses have
admitted that accused Gurmeet Singh attended the
office on 5.9.1995 till after noon, when he was
taken away by some persons and then PW-64 admitted
that he was taken away by the Police. Even DSP
Surinder Pal Singh, who had collected the leave
records also admitted that accused Gurmeet Singh
was arrested from his office. Thus, this evidence
itself proves that accused Gurmeet Singh was
present on his duties on 31.8.1995, 2.9.1995,
4.9.1995 and 5.9.1995 which means even after the
bomb blast in guestion, which took place on
31.8.1995 and this fact alone shows that he was not
concerned with this occurrence otherwise he would
have escaped.

258. Not even this, it is admitted case of PW-
67 that every employee working in the company has
to prepare a Engineer's daily report and the
reports of Gurmeet Singh were also taken into
possession by the Police. But these reports have
not been made part of the record with a obvious
purpose that had it been produced the entire story

340

of the prosecution will become false as to the
absence of this accused on 31.8.1995 and 4.9.1995
and these reports further shows that this accused
was attending his office from 20.8.1995 to
31.8.1995, which is the crucial period during
which the conspiracy was hatched.

259. He further submitted that it is alleged by
the prosecution that PW-99, Chamkaur Singh, was
knowing the accused Gurmeet Singh and he was having
some association with accused Lakhwinder Singh,
Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh and the prosecution
further alleged that on the morning of 31.8.1995,
when assassin Dilawar Singh and Balwant Singh, were
about to leave the house of PW-99, Gurmeet Singh
had also come there to meet them but this theory of
prosecution remained unsubstantiated because in his
cross examination, this witness admitted that the
accused Gurmeet Singh had not come to his house and
in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C also, he has not
mentioned this fact also and as such the testimony
of this witness to associate with accused Gurmeet
Singh with the remaining accused proved in vain to
bring home the conspiracy by the accused Gurmeet
Singh .

260. He further submitted that as per the
prosecution the belt bomb was prepared in the
house of accused Gurmeet Singh and in view of the
testimony of PW-55, Reema Kahlon, PW-68, Puran

341

Chand and PW-63, Avtar Singh and PW-101 Satwinder
Pal Singh @ Simpy, it is proved that all the
accused persons including Dilawar Singh, Balwant
Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara and Lakhwinder Singh
prepared the bomb and when the room of accused
Gurmeet Singh was raided on 8.9.1995, some
incriminating articles having the traces of RDX
were recovered in the presence of PW-160, RS.Verma
and PW-70, Parnab Sain. But the prosecution has
failed to substantive its story in this regard.

261. As far as the testimony of PW-55, Reema

Kahlon is concerned, she was allegedly working in
the PCO of PW-63, Avtar Singh, in the ground floor
of the room, where the accused Gurmeet Singh was
residing and she alleged that 2-3 days prior to
31.8.1995, she had seen 3-4 persons coming to the
house of accused Gurmeet Singh and she allegedly
identified the photographs of some of those persons
including that of Dilawar Singh but she failed to
identify any of the accused in the court. On the
contrary, in her cross examination, she admitted
that while sitting in the booth she could not see
the stairs or the room of the Gurmeet Singh and she
further admitted that as far as the name of the
persons used to visit Gurmeet Singh is concerned, it
was disclosed to her by the CBI and if it is so,
the testimony of this witness is of no relevance as
far as accused Gurmeet Singh is concerned.

342

262. Similarly PW-63, Avtar Singh, who is the
owner of the room, where accused Gurmeet Singh,
was residing along with PW-101, Satwinder Pal Singh
@ Simpy, failed to say anything incriminating
against this accused as his only stand was that
initially PW-101, Satwinder Pal Singh @ Simpy was
inducted as a tenant in his room and later on he
brought accused Gurmeet Singh as a co-tenant and
both of them started residing there. Apart from
this, he stated nothing against accused Gurmeet
Singh. On the contrary, he admitted that after the
occurrence of blast on 31.8.1995 PW-101, S.P.Singh
@ Simpy was absconding from the room and he had
also taken away his belongings and if it was so,
the conduct of PW-101 was suspicious but as far as
accused Gurmeet Singh is concerned, he continued to
reside in this room till his arrest.

263. Similarly, the testimony of PW-68, Puran
Chand is also not relevant as he has also simply
alleged that he has seen some persons while
visiting the room of accused Gurmeet Singh and he
identified the photographs of those persons during
the investigation and also in the court and then he
identified the accused in the court on the basis of
the photographs but that identification is
irrelevant and meaningless because no test
identification parade was conducted by the Police
to establish the identity of any of the accused
persons from this witness and as such identified by

343

way of photo graph is irrelevant.

264. He further submitted that as far as the
testimony of PW-101, Satwinder Pal Singh @ Simpy,
is concerned, it is also not admissible in evidence
because this witness has disclosed the name of the
accused persons under the pressure of the Police.
To substantiate this plea, he submitted that when
PW-101 was examined for the first time on
4.12.1999, he had not identified any of the accused
persons except accused Gurmeet Singh. On the
contrary, his act and conduct was so suspicious
that the only inference which can be drawn was that
he is pressurized by the Police to depose and
because of that pressure he collapsed in the court
during his testimony and earlier also he was
weeping and confused and upset.

265. Not even this, he has alleged that he
along with accused Gurmeet Singh took this room
jointly whereas the owner of the house, Avtar
Singh, had categorically deposed that it was this
witness, who took the room on rent alone and later
on he joined Gurmeet Singh as a co-tenant. Not even
this he admitted that on 28.8.1995, when the
friends of the accused Gurmeet Singh visited his
room, he was not knowing any of them except accused
Dilawar Singh and it was Gurmeet Singh, who
introduced his friends as Lakhwinder Singh, Balwant
Singh and Bhai Ji and later on he came to know that

344

the real name of Bhai Ji was Jagtar Singh Hawara.

266. Not even this he further admitted that in
the month of January, 1996 the accused Balwant
Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara were shown to him by
the CBI. Above all he admitted that on 31.8.1995
accused Gurmeet Singh was very much present in the
room whereas after 31-8-1995, PW-101 stopped
residing in the room and never visited the same
even to take his belongings and this fact shows
that it was this witness, who was absconding after
31-8-1995 and just to save himself from the hands
of the CBI, he became a witness and during his
cross examination, when he was again asked to
identify the accused persons by name, he failed to
identify the accused persons except accused Gurmeet
Singh and Balwant Singh. Thus the testimony of this
witness is not reliable as far as the disputed
question of participation of accused Gurmeet Singh
in conspiracy as well as its execution is
concerned .

267. He further submitted that as far as the
identification of the accused persons by
photographs and then in the court is concerned, it
is also of no consequences and can not be made
basis to establish their identity because in
D.Gopala Krishanan Versus Sadanand Nayak, AIR 2004,
SC, page 4965, the learned Apex Court held that if
during the course of investigation, the witness had

345

given the identifying features of the assailants,
the same could be confirmed by the Investigating
Officer, by showing the photographs of the suspects
but not a single photo graph. However, if the
suspect is available for identification or for
video identification, the photographs shall never
be shown to the witness in advance and if during
the investigations, the Police has shown the
photographs of the accused to the witnesses despite
the fact that the witnesses were neither knowing
them nor gave any identifying features and then
those witnesses identifies the accused in the
court, such a identification is not admissible.

268. Similarly, in the present case, none of

the witnesses were associated with Gurmeet Singh or
either knowing him or provided his identifying
features, as such showing them the photo graph of
this accused and then identification of this
accused by those witnesses including PW-68 Puran
Chand, Avtar Singh is of no conseguences and the
prosecution was required to conduct a test
identification parade to establish the identity.
Similarly in Laxmipat Choraria Versus State of
Maharashtra AIR 1968, SC, page 938, the Hon'ble
apex Court held that identification of a suspect by
the witnesses on the basis of photographs in the
court or in the identification parade is worthless
and can not be made basis for the conviction of the
accused .

346

269. At the same time, it is admitted case of
prosecution that no test identification parade was
conducted to establish the identity of any of the
accused persons associated with the conspiracy. On
the contrary either the accused have been shown to
them during the investigations or their photographs
have been shown and then they have been asked to
identify the accused persons despite the fact that
they have neither disclosed the vital statistics
regarding the identity of the accused persons nor
their name or any other description and if it is so
the testimony of all these witnesses is irrelevant.

270. In support of this plea, he has relied
upon Jaimal Singh Versus The State of Haryana,
reported in AIR 1988 (2) Recent Criminal Reports,
page 58, Man Singh and ors Versus The State of
Haryana, reported in 1984(2) Recent Criminal
Reports, P&H page 379, Ramanathan Versus The State
of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court,
page 1204, Rakesh Harilal Kahar Versus State of
Maharashtra reported in AIR 2007(2) RCR Criminal,
page 325, Khan Singh @ Ujagar Khan and Chhotey
Versus State, reported in 1997 CRI . L . J. 2305 ,
Mahendra Singh Versus State of U.P., reported in
1991 CRI. L.J. 1381, State (Delhi Admn) Versus
V.C.Shukla, reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court,
page 1382 , Shaikh Umar Ahmed Shaikh and another
versus State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1998

347

Supreme Court, page 1922.

271. Similarly, he further submitted that the
prosecution has also failed to prove the recovery
of any incriminating articles from the house of
accused Gurmeet Singh and its link with the
conspiracy and execution of the same. As per
learned defence counsel, it is alleged by
prosecution that PW-237, A.K.Ohri, after the arrest
of accused Gurmeet Singh, raided his house at
Patiala and as per recovery memo, Ex.PW-237/1,
some articles were recovered but none of those
articles were incriminating.

272. At the same time, at the time of the
arrest of accused Gurmeet Singh, as per arrest memo
Ex.PW51/4, the address of house of the accused, as
resident of H. No. 981 Phase IV Mohali, was known to
the Investigating Officer and if it was so, he was
required to raid that house immediately but instead
of doing so, he raided the house at Patiala, which
has no link with the offence.

273. On the contrary, the house of Gurmeet
Singh at Mohali was allegedly raided on 8.9.1995,
which fact can not be believed on the face of it.
As such, all the proceedings showing the making of
disclosure statement , Ex . PW68/A by accused Gurmeet
Singh on 8.9.1995, in the presence of PW-70, Parnab
Sain and PW-68, Puran Chand and recovery of

348

incriminating articles
statements is totally
doubtful .

on the basis of these
irrelevant and highly

274. To substantiate this plea, he submitted

that it is alleged by the prosecution after making
of disclosure statement by accused Gurmeet Singh,
when the house of the accused Gurmeet Singh was
raided at Mohali, PW-160 R.S.Verma were also
associated. However, the presence of this witness
during search and seizure proceedings is highly
doubtful, as he admitted that the recovery memo,
Ex.PW68/B, vide which some articles were recovered
from the house of accused Gurmeet Singh, is not
signed by him, and there is no explanation in this
regard. It is further alleged that PW-160 examined
the incriminating articles then and there in the
room of Gurmeet Singh but no report was prepared by
him in this regard at the spot which further belies
his presence during the recovery proceedings.

275. At the same time, it can not be believed

that the particles of RDX and all the articles used
to prepare the belt bomb will be scattered by the
accused persons in his house as alleged. On the
contrary, this story is highly unbelievable
specially when it is proved on the file that after
the occurrence of 31.8.1995, accused Gurmeet Singh
is admittedly residing in his room up to 5.9.1995
and he being an Engineer will not left any

349

incriminating particles or articles containing the
traces of RDX in his room and he will not allow the
presence of any such material there. Had he been
involved in conspiracy the first thing he would
have done would be the cleaning of his room and
this fact alone shows that this entry story is
bogus and fabricated.

276. Above all, the entire story of the

prosecution that the belt bomb was prepared in the
house of Gurmeet Singh stands falsify from the
confession of accused Balwant Singh, who in his
confession, categorically stated that the belt bomb
was prepared by him and Jagtar Singh Hawara no
26.8.1995 itself and on 27.8.1995 some splinters
etc were added in the same to complete the bomb. If
it is so, there was no occasion whatsoever to take
the services of accused Gurmeet Singh for the
preparation of bomb at his premises as alleged
specially when he is not a ballistic expert but he
is simply an electrical engineer.

277. Not even this, even in the confession of

accused Jagtar Singh Tara, there is no mention of
any preparation of Belt bomb in the house of
accused Gurmeet Singh, which further falsify the
stand of prosecution and shows that there is no
evidence on the file to link this accused with the
conspiracy or its execution.

350

278. Lastly he submitted that the other
material rather the most material witness of the
prosecution leading to unearth the entire
conspiracy is PW-51, Surinder Sharma, who allegedly
painted the Car No DBA-9598 between 26.8.1995 to
30.8.1995 on the asking of accused Lakhwinder
Singh, Balwant Singh and Gurmeet Singh. It is
alleged by the prosecution that this witness has
disclosed the identity of the accused Gurmeet Singh
and Lakhwinder Singh as the person, who came to him
for the painting of the car. If it is so, this
witness must be knowing or capable of identifying
both these accused persons.

279. However, it is admitted case of the
prosecution that on 5.9.1995 when both these
accused persons were arrested by PW-238, Vijay
Kumar Inspector, both PW-51, Surinder Sharma and
another witness Balwinder Singh (who has not been
examined by the prosecution) were present and on
their identity accused Lakhwinder Singh was
arrested and thereafter on the identity of accused
Lakhwinder Singh, accused Gurmeet Singh was
arrested in the presence of PW-51, Surinder Sharma
and Balwinder Singh, which means both these
witnesses have seen the accused, Gurmeet Singh and
Lakhwinder Singh.

280. However, despite this on 6.9.1995, when
these accused persons were arrested by the CBI and

351

were produced before the court of area Magistrate
at Chandigarh, with muffled faces, both of them
moved an application seeking their identity from
both these witnesses, fully knowing the
repercussion, because they were sure that both PW-
51 and Balwinder Kumar will not identify them as
they never went to his shop for the painting of the
car and they were never known to both these
witnesses .

281. However, this application of accused

persons was contested by the prosecution despite
the fact that it is admitted case of PW-247,
R.S.Punia that he produced both the accused
Lakhwinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh with muffled
faces, with an obvious purpose to move for an test
identification parade from the witnesses. However,
despite this reguest of defence counsel for
conducting a test identification parade from the
witnesses was declined by the area Magistrate on
the plea of the prosecution that they have no eye
witness for conducting the test identification
parade. This stand of prosecution was highly
objectionable and was false as PW-51 and Balwinder
Kumar were the two material witnesses, as far as
the identity of accused Gurmeet Singh as one of the
persons met him for painting of the car, is
concerned. Had the reguest of the accused persons
been allowed, the Cat must have been out of bag as
PW-51 and Balwinder Singh would not be able to

352

identify them and the story of prosecution would
have become false then and there.

282 However, this right has been denied to the
accused persons and if it is so benefit of doubt
must be given to the accused persons by drawing
adverse inference, as per the law laid down by the
Punjab & Haryana High Court in Joginder Singh @
Naginder Singh Versus State of Punjab, 1974 CLR,
page 588 where the Hon'ble High Court held that
where the reguest of the accused to conduct the
test identification parade has been declined so as
to deny a right to set up a defence of his choice
by the accused persons, its benefit must go to
them. Similar principle was reiterated by the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gaddam Vijaya Bhaskara
Reddy and others Versus State of A.P reported in
1999 CRL.L.J., page 2715.

283 Even otherwise testimony of PW-51 is of no
conseguences as far as the identity and link of
accused Gurmeet Singh is concerned. First of all
PW-51 has admitted that he was not knowing accused
Gurmeet Singh prior to this occurrence. At the same
time, he alleged that accused Gurmeet Singh,
Lakhwinder Singh came to him from 26.8.1995 to
28.8.1995 for getting the car re-painted but this
stand of PW-51 is falsified from the confession of
accused Balwant Singh, wherein he has alleged that
on 26.8.1995 he was at Patiala throughout the day

353

and it was accused Jagtar Singh Tara and Paramjit
Singh, (who is being tried separately) who were
directed to get the car re-painted and the name of
Gurmeet Singh and Lakhwinder Singh was never there.

284. To further substantiate this plea, learned

defence counsel submitted that as per PW-51 on
26.8.1995 accused Lakhwinder Singh came to the shop
with three persons, two of whom were Sikh Gentleman
and one without turban, which were later on
identified as accused Gurmeet Singh and Balwant
Singh and deceased Dilawar Singh and they asked him
to re-paint the Car No. DBA-9598 in white colour
and thereafter from 28.8.1995 to 30.8.1995 the
accused Gurmeet Singh and Lakhwinder Singh came to
him for getting the delivery of the car. However,
this theory was never disclosed by accused Balwant
Singh or accused Jagtar Singh Tara in their
confessions .

285 On the contrary, accused Balwant Singh

alleged that he was at Patiala on that date
throughout the day. At the same time, the CBI has
intentionally introduced PW-50, Tirlok Nath @ Tota,
and PW-48, Ranjit Singh, just to corroborate the
false stand of PW-51, who has otherwise proved to
be not known to any of the accused persons
personally. The name of any of these witnesses do
not figure in the statement of PW-51, under section
161 Cr.P.C, recorded by the Chandigarh Police.

354

286 Not even this, the prosecution has also

introduced two other witnesses PW-114, Dalbir Singh
@ Maulla and PW-69, Madanjit Singh @ Channa, again
to lend corroboration and to show the proximity of
PW-51, Surinder Sharma with Lakhwinder Singh and
even the name of these two witnesses do not figure
in the statement of PW-51 recorded by the
Chandigarh Police.

287. Above all PW-51 further admitted that till

6.9.1995 he was not knowing about the identity of
any other accused persons except accused Lakhwinder
Singh and he further admitted that he identified
three other persons, who came along with accused
Lakhwinder Singh, on the basis of photographs and
he has no where given the description of any of the
accused persons in his statement recorded by the
Chandigarh Police or by the CBI.

288 On the contrary, during his evidence,

first of all photographs of three accused persons
including Gurmeet Singh were shown to him and then
he was directed to identify and he identified them.
Not even this for the first time, he appeared for
statement on 26.2.1997 but on that day, apart from
identifying accused Lakhwinder Singh, he had not
identified any of the accused persons. On the
contrary, on the next date of hearing i.e 27.2.1997
he identified the remaining accused persons that

355

too when the photographs were shown to him. Thus,
it is clear that this witness was never knowing the
name or identity of all the remaining accused
persons and if it is so the testimony of PW 51
leads no where.

289 Even he story of the prosecution that on

28.8.1995 accused Gurmeet Singh & Lakhwinder Singh
went to PW-51 to collect the Car is further
falsified by accused Balwant Singh, who in his
confession admitted that on 28.8.1995 the Car was
already with him and he along with Jagtar Singh
Tara & Dilawar parked the car near Gurudwara,
Phase-IV Mohali.

290. Not even this, there are glaring

discrepancies and material improvement in the
testimony of PW-51 and the other prosecution
witnesses related to this theory and all these
makes his testimony highly doubtful. To
substantiate this plea, he submitted that he has
introduced in a new theory when he alleged that
after seeing the photo graph of the car in the news
paper, he talk to Inspector Ram Kumar of

Chandigarh Police and on his asking, Ram Kumar
Inspector took him to DSP Abrol and then his
statement was recorded. This stand was never taken
by the witness in his statement u/S 161 Cr.P.C. Not
even this, there is nothing on the file to show
that how DSP Abrol was concerned with the

356

investigation of this case, when the investigation
of the case were already handed over to the CBI on
the night of 31.8.1995 itself. The prosecution has
not examined DSP Abrol to explain this material
fact which further raises doubts about the stand of
PW-51 .

291. Even the recovery conducted by the Police
at the time of arrest of accused, Gurmeet Singh, is
highly doubtful and the recovery of chit,
Ex.PW51/5, is by way of padding and it can not be
believed that the accused, Gurmeet Singh, will kept
in his pocket such a chit, if he is actually
involved in the conspiracy and the crime. This fact
further shows that all the proceedings of the
police relating to the arrest, recovery and link of
this accused with the case in hand is highly
doubtful and this accused is entitled for benefit
of doubt.

292. Taking the case of accused Lakhwinder
Singh, learned defence counsel submitted that it is
alleged by the prosecution that this accused was
also associated in the conspiracy and he along with
accused Gurmeet Singh, Dilawar Singh and Balwant
Singh got the car re-painted fully knowing that the
car will be used to kill Beant Singh. However,
there is not even an iota of evidence on the file
to prove this stand of the prosecution.

357

293. On the contrary, it is proved on the file
that this accused was not even present at
Chandigarh during the time of conspiracy and the
bomb blast, as it is proved on the file that
accused Lakhwinder Singh, who is a constable posted
in the security wing of Punjab Police, was sent on
duty as driver with Sant Ram Singla, then Member
Parliament (since dead) on 11.7.1995 and vide
daily dairy no . 9 dt . 11 . 7 . 1995, as proved on the file
by DW-12, he left for Delhi and never came back
till 1.9.1995, when he came to Chandigarh to get
his salary. On 1.9.1995 he was arrested by the CBI
and he was kept in illegal custody and after
torture, he was linked with this case.

294. He further argued despite the fact that
the accused Lakhwinder Singh being the Constable,
was required to inform his seniors about his duties
and leave etc, the prosecution has not collected
any evidence to show that during the alleged period
of conspiracy and blast, he was not on duty or he
was on leave. On the contrary, DSP Surinder Pal has
taken into possession the service record of this
accused but the entire record as mentioned in
recovery memo, Ex.PW241/l, is prior to 11.7.1995
and there is no record with the Police, even in the
service book, to show that the accused was at
Chandigarh during said period.

295. Even in the service book of this accused,

358

Ex.PW241/2, there are no entry after 28.6.1995
whereas, as per the index attached with the service
book, it is mentioned that all the transfers beyond
the District are to be entered in this service
book. But the relevant page of the service book in
this regard is missing. As such, the stand of
prosecution that the accused Lakhwinder Singh was
posted in Intelligence Wing of Punjab Police upto
31.8.1995, is without any basis and PW Surinder
Pal Singh had failed to substantiate this fact.

296. On the contrary, he admitted that he had
not seen the service record regarding the posting
of accused Lakhwinder Singh after 11.7.1995 to
31.8.1995 despite the fact that the relevant dates
regarding the conspiracy and participation by this
accused were 26.8.1995 to31.8.1995. He has not
collected any record to show whether the accused
was on leave or on duty during that period.

297. Thus, instead of conducting the
investigation in the proper prospect and right
direction, he has manipulated the records and
failed to take the relevant record, which shows
that the investigations are highly tainted. Even
PW-59, C.Balwinder Singh, examined by the
prosecution admitted that after working for about
5-6 months after December, 1994, accused Lakhwinder
Singh was posted out. If it is so, participation of
accused Lakhwinder Singh in the conspiracy during

359

the relevant period is completely ruled out.

298. At the same time the entire story of the
prosecution to link him with this case proved in
vain. PW-159, C.Gurbachan Singh, failed to identity
the accused Lakhwinder Singh in court and as such
his testimony is immaterial. Similarly, PW-197,
C.Ranjit Singh, who is also police constable is
also not relevant as he has only identified the
accused Lakhwinder Singh, while opening account in
the Bank and the stand of this witness that
deceased Dilawar Singh also visited him is a false
stand as he admitted that he disclosed this fact
for the first time in the court.

299. Similarly, evidence of PW-162,
C.Sukhwinder Pal Singh is also of no consequences
as all he says is about the visit of deceased
Dilawar Singh to the house of Lakhwinder Singh,
which is not a incriminating circumstance to link
the accused Lakhwinder Singh with the conspiracy.
Even PW-191, C.Darshan Singh says so as was stated
by PW-162 but his testimony is not relevant for the
same reason. On the contrary, he admitted that
accused, Lakhwinder Singh was transferred to Delhi
and he had given him some references of his
friends .

300. As per learned defence counsel, as far as
the testimony of PW-99, Chamkaur Singh, is

360

concerned, as discussed earlier, again he has only
deposed that he had seen the accused Lakhwinder
Singh on the morning of 31.8.1995, which by itself
is not of any use for the prosecution. Similarly
the stand of PW-101, Satwinder Pal Singh, is also
not relevant, as far as the identity of accused
Lakhwinder Singh by this witness, is concerned. On
the contrary, when PW-101 was examined for the
first time on 4.12.1999, he had not identified any
of the accused persons except accused Gurmeet
Singh. On the contrary, his act and conduct was so
suspicious that the only inference which can be
drawn was that he is pressurized by the Police to
depose and because of that pressure he collapsed in
the court during his testimony and earlier also he
was weeping and very confused and upset.

301. Not even this, he admitted that on
28.8.1995, when the friends of the accused Gurmeet
Singh visited his room, he was not knowing any of
them except accused Dilawar Singh and it was
Gurmeet Singh, who introduced his friends as
Lakhwinder Singh, Balwant Singh and Bhai Ji and
later on he came to know that the real name of Bhai
Ji was Jagtar Singh Hawara.

302. Even otherwise, he has also identified the
all the accused persons including accused,
Lakhwinder Singh, on the basis of photographs shown
to him during the investigations and during his

361

testimony and as such the said identification is of
no consequences specially when no identification
parade was conducted to establish the identity of
this accused from that witness. Not even this
during his cross examination when he was asked to
identify the accused persons by name, he failed to
identify any of the accused persons including
Lakhwinder Singh. As such, his testimony has no
relevancy as far as the identity of accused
Lakhwinder Singh, his participation in the
conspiracy and its execution is concerned.

303. Even the testimony of PW-51, Surinder

Sharma is not sufficient to link this accused. To
substantiate this plea, he submitted that as
discussed earlier, PW-51, Surinder Sharma, was not
knowing any of the accused persons and he has
introduced the name of accused Lakhwinder, Gurmeet
etc under the pressure of the Police and his stand
that it was accused Lakhwinder Singh and co-
accused, who got the car re-painted from him is
already falsified from the confession of accused
Balwant Singh & Jagtar Singh Tara, who alleged that
it was accused Paramjit Singh, (who is being tried
separately) , who was assigned the duty of repaint
of the car and not Lakhwinder Singh and if it is
so, the stand of PW-51, is false as far as the
identity of accused Lakhwinder Singh and his
participation in the conspiracy and its execution
is concerned.

362

304. Similarly as stated earlier, no test
identification parade was conducted despite the
asking of accused Lakhwinder Singh to do so. If it
is so, the stand of prosecution that accused
Lakhwinder Singh was known to PW-51 is also proved
to be false.

305. Even PW-185, Mewa Singh, who was
running a tea shop near the Secretariat had failed
to identify accused Lakhwinder Singh and failed to
depose against him and as such his testimony is
also irrelevant. Similarly testimony of PW-164, PC
Sharma and PW-163, Raj Mohan, in whose presence
search of the house of accused, Lakhwinder Singh,
was conducted, is also irrelevant as nothing
incriminating was recovered from the house of
accused .

306. As far as the testimony of PW-113,
Surinder Kumar is concerned, he has alleged that
after the third day of the occurrence, he along
with Lakhwinder Singh and PW-114, Dalbir Singh @
Maula had taken liguor but apart from this he has
not stated anything, so his testimony is also of no
use to the prosecution.

307. He further submitted that it is alleged by
the prosecution that during the search of accused
Lakhwinder Singh, a chit, Ex.PW51/3, was recovered

363

and later on, the hand writing of chit was compared
with the specimen hand writing of this accused
taken in the presence of PW-112, Chunni Lai and it
matches with the disputed chit and thus links the
accused with this blast. However, this theory of
the prosecution is not tenable in the eyes of law
nor there is any evidence to prove this fact.
First of all, neither the consent of accused
Lakhwinder Singh nor the permission of the Area
Magistrate to take the specimen hand writing and
signatures of accused were obtained. The testimony
of PW-112 and PW-105 in whose presence the specimen
hand-writing of accused, Lakhwinder Singh, has been
allegedly taken is of no use to the prosecution, as
they have not identified the accused Lakhwinder in
the court nor the accused was identified by them at
the time when the specimens were taken. Even the
DSP in whose presence the specimen were taken has
not been examined. As such, it makes the entire
proceedings illegal and no reliance can be placed
on this evidence.

308. Secondly, PW-166, T.R.Nehra, who has

allegedly compared the specimen hand writing of
accused Lakhwinder Singh with the hand writing on
the chit, Ex.PW51/3, found that it is not matching
with the so called admitted hand writing and
signatures of the accused Lakhwinder Singh. As
such, this theory remained unproved and belies the
entire case of the prosecution.

364

309. Similarly, testimony of PW-97, Shanker Lai
Yadav, who was running a dhaba near Secretariat and
it is alleged that the accused Lakhwinder and PW-
114, Maulla allegedly took meals at his Dhaba on
31.8.1995, is also of no conseguences as he failed
to identify the accused in the court. The stand of
PW-111, Mohan Lai, regarding the association of
accused Lakhwinder Singh, with the remaining
accused persons, is also based on a cock and bull
story and is not reliable as the alleged visit of
these accused persons is in the month of May, 1995,
when the conspiracy was not even conceived. At the
same time, none of the accused was known to this
witness prior to this occurrence and he identified
them only on the basis of photographs, which is
already held to be not admissible.

310. Similarly, PW-69, Madanjit Singh @ Channa
is also a procured witness, who has allegedly
introduced accused Lakhwinder Singh to PW-51 along
with PW-114, Dalbir Singh @ Maulla. However, this
witness in his statement to Police failed to name
PW-114, Dalbir Singh @ Maulla, to be present at the
time of introduction. At the same time, this
witness also admitted that on 2.9.1995, he took
liguor and what happened there after is not known
to him. Lastly, he also admitted that PW-114,
Dalbir Singh @ Maulla is drug addict and he also
used to take drug and this fact alone shows that he

365

is a procured witness and introduced just to link
the accused Lakhwinder Singh with the crime. This
fact is further clear from the statement of this
witness, who admitted that he did not know how
accused Lakhwinder Singh was arrested by whom and
when his house was arrested despite the fact that
he disclosed that he was close friend of accused
Lakhwinder Singh. Similarly, the Police official,
who recorded the statement of this witness was not
examined to explain how he came to know about the
identity of this witness and how he linked this
witness .

311. Similarly, as far as PW-114, Dalhir Singh

@ Maulla, is concerned, it is proved on the file, he
is illiterate, poor and drug addict, as such he was
an easy prey for the CBI to introduce as a witness.
But his testimony is also proved in vain to bring
home the case of the prosecution. To substantiate
his plea, he submitted that there is no evidence on
the file as to how the police came to know about
the identity of this witness. DSP Harbhajan Ram,
who has allegedly recorded the statement of this
witness has not been examined as a witness
specially when PW-51, who was the star witness of
the prosecution on this aspect has not disclosed
the name of this witness. As such, the testimony of
this witness is also based on concocted fact and he
has been introduced by the CBI later on just to
corroborate the stand of PW-51.

366

312. He further submitted that the theory of
the prosecution that the accused Lakhwinder Singh,
is the owner of Scooter No. PCP-2085 and the same
was used by him in the commission of crime, is also
not proved on the file as it is admitted case of
the prosecution that accused Lakhwinder Singh is
not the registered owner of this Scooter. On the
other hand, it is admitted case of the prosecution
that the scooter was owned by PW-45, Vijay Kumar
Chopra, who sold it to PW- 47, Harjit Singh. It is
alleged that PW-47, Harjit Singh sold this Scooter
to PW-54, Deepinder Mehta and then said Deepinder
Mehta sold it to accused Lakhwinder Singh. However,
there is no receipt or record to show that PW-47
ever sold the scooter to PW-54. The affidavit Ex.D9
is no document in the eyes of law as it is not
attested by any Magistrate or Oath Commissioner and
it is without date month or year. Statement of PW-
54, Deepinder Mehta regarding sale of Scooter to
Lakhwinder Singh as per receipt, Ex.PW54/l, is
based on after thought.

313. As a result the fact remains that the
scooter in question, Ex.P80 still stands in the
name of PW-47, Harjit Singh and there is no
document whatsoever on the file which was handed
over to accused Lakhwinder Singh with regard to
sale of Scooter to him. The alleged receipt,
Ex.PW54/2 can not be termed as a receipt and in his

367

cross examination PW-54, Deepinder Mehta, failed to
disclose the date when this transaction took place
and also admitted that in his statement u/s 161
Cr.P.C. it is no where mentioned that two receipts
were prepared and one was handed over to the mother
of Lakhwinder and other was obtained by him he had
come to Chandigarh for this transaction and thus
there is no evidence on the file to link the
scooter with accused Lakhwinder Singh. As such this
evidence is also insufficient to link the accused
with the conspiracy.

314. He further submitted that last piece of
evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the
accused is making of an extra judicial confession
by accused Lakhwinder Singh before PW-114, Dalbir
Singh @ Maulla but as stated earlier the testimony
of Dalbir Singh @ Maulla is otherwise not reliable
and there is no evidence on the file that why
accused Lakhwinder Singh will confide with PW-114,
Dalbir Singh @ Maulla specially when he is having
no relationship with him and at the same time PW-
114 is not in position to help him being a poor and
illiterate drug addict.

315. Thus the alleged extra judicial confession
of this accused is also a waste paper and is not
admissible in evidence specially when it is
admitted case of PW-114, that accused Lakhwinder
Singh suffered so called extra judicial confession,

368

when he was under the influence of liquor and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in C . K . Raveendran Versus
State of Kerala reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court,
page 369, held that an extra judicial confession
made by an accused under the influence of liquor
cannot be said to be voluntarily and truthful one
and liable to be excluded from the preview of
consideration. Not even this, the extra judicial
confession made to an unknown person is a weak type
of evidence as held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana
High Court in Gopi Chand Versus State of Haryana,
2005 (4) RCR, Criminal, page 778.

316. At the same time, this confession has not
been corroborated by any evidence and thus becomes
inadmissible in evidence as held by the Hon'ble
Punjab & Haryana High Court in State of U.T
Chandigarh Versus Rakesh Kumar, 2002 (3) RCC, page
472.

317. Similarly, there is no explanation on the
file as to why accused Lakhwinder Singh waited for
3 days for making the confession before PW-114, who
is alleged to be his friend, which further makes
this extra judicial confession in admissible in
evidence as per the law laid down in Satinder Pal
Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2005 (4) RCR
Criminal, page 494.

318. Lastly he submitted that as discussed

369

earlier credibility of PW-114, is already proved to
be very low because of his status and antecedents
and there is no explanation as to for what motive
accused will make confession to PW-114 and why he
reposes confidence in PW-114, who is man of weak
character and bad habits and it further makes the
theory of extra judicial confession a concocted
piece of evidence and thus not reliable as held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Heremba Brahama Versus
State of Assam, AIR 1982 SC, page 1595. He
accordingly concluded that this evidence also
proved in vain to link the accused with this case.

319. The learned defence counsel further
submitted that it is alleged by the prosecution
that on 1.9.1995 PW-178, S.K.Chadha inspected the
Car No. DBA-9598, Ex.P76, and as per his report,
Ex.PW178/l, lifted various chance finger prints
available on the car and there after when he
compared those finger prints with the specimen
finger prints of accused Lakhwinder Singh and other
accused persons, he found that one of the finger
prints, mark Q-4 , is identical to the specimen
thumb impression, LTS 24 , of accused Lakhwinder
Singh as per his report, Ex.PW178/5, which links
the accused Lakhwinder Singh with the case in hand.

320. However, during his cross examination this
witness could not substantiate his report and
admitted that the specimen finger prints of

370

accused, Lakhwinder Singh, are different from the
questioned finger print, Q-4 , as to its character
as well as formation of patterns. He admitted that
the questioned finger print, Q-4 , is of double loop
composite pattern and so is the specimen thumb
impression LTS 24, where as he further admitted
that arch type ridges of right side of LTS 24 is
not available in Q-4 and there is no lake in LTS 24
but it is in Q-4 .

321. Even otherwise as held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Mohd Man Versus State of Rajasthan, AIR
1997, Supreme Court, page 2960, if the finger
prints are not taken before the Magistrate, it can
not be made basis to convict a accused as
possibility of tempering and fabrication of the
evidence cannot be ruled out. Similarly these can
not be made basis as the consent of the accused was
also not obtained before taking the specimens as
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs
Ram Babu Mishra, 1980 CLR, page 196 and Bhola Ram
Vs State of Punjab, 1991 (1) CLR, page 382.

322. As such, he submitted that this evidence
of the prosecution can not be made basis to link
the accused with this case and resultantly, there
is no cogent and reliable evidence on the file to
link the accused Lakhwinder Singh and he is liable
to be acquitted.

371

323. Taking the case of accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara, learned defence counsel submitted that it
is alleged by the prosecution that this accused was
the main person, who hatched the conspiracy and
motivated the remaining accused persons to
participate in the same on the behest of Wadhawa
Singh and Mehal Singh, propounder of Babbar Khalsa
International based in Pakistan and there after he
joined hands with remaining accused persons and
decided to kill Beant Singh with the help of a
human bomb by using RDX. And to achieve this
purpose, he brought RDX with the help of accused
Shamsher Singh in the Truck of PW-107, Sapinder
Singh and then prepared the bomb and kept some part
of the RDX in the house of accused Nasib Singh, who
was also knowing about the conspiracy and was part
and parcel of conspiracy.

324. However, there is not even an iota of
evidence against this accused, which could remotely
link him either with the Babbar Khalsa
International or Wadhawa Singh and Mehal Singh or
with the conspiracy to kill Beant Singh and its
execution in the manner suggested by the
prosecution. On the contrary the entire evidence
suggests that the conspiracy if any was hatched not
in Pakistan but in other countries.

325. To substantiate this plea, he further
submitted that the first piece of evidence relied

372

upon by the prosecution to link this accused is the
statement of PW-109, Inderjit Singh, before whom
Charanjit Singh of Ghaziabad has disclosed that
accused, Jagtar Singh Hawara, confessed before
him (Charan j it singh) that accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara and his associates had killed the Beant
Singh. However, on the face of it, the statement of
PW-109 is not admissible in evidence being based on
hearsay evidence. At the same time, PW-109 has
failed to corroborate this theory of prosecution
and totally disowned his statement allegedly made
by him to the CBI u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. On the
other hand, he alleged that he was detained by the
Police and CBI illegally and was tortured and this
fact alone shows that the Police tried to create
evidence to link this accused without there being
his link.

326. He further submitted that it is alleged by

the prosecution that Truck of PW-107, Sapinder
Singh was used by the accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
and Shamsher Singh to bring RDX from a Village,
near Ajnala, near the Indo-Pak boarder. However,
when he stepped into the witness box, he deposed
that he never took his truck to bring RDX as
alleged by the prosecution either on the behest of
Shamsher Singh or Jagtar Singh Hawara. On the
contrary, he alleged that he was picked by Punjab
Police on 28.10.1995 and was kept in illegal
custody till 14.12.1995, when he was handed over to

373

the CBI and then he was forced by the CBI to depose
against the accused persons and under that threat
he was forced to make a statement under Section 164
of the Cr.P.C. At the same time, when this witness
has appeared in the witness box, he has not
supported the story of the prosecution. On the
contrary, he had even denied making of a voluntary
statement u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C and thus his
testimony also proved in vain to link this accused
with this case in any manner.

327. Similarly, testimony of PW-74, Amrik
Singh, who is a taxi driver is also of no
consequences as he failed to identify any of the
accused persons including the accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara as one of the person, who traveled in his
taxi from Patiala to Mohali. At the same time, PW-
231, who has recorded his statement, has failed to
explain how he came to know about the identity of
this witness. As per PW-231 it was the Chief
Investigating Officer Saxena,who asked him to
record the statement of this witness but DSP Saxena
has denied this fact. On the contrary in his cross
examination, this witness admitted that he was
taken to Delhi by the Punjab Police and was asked
to make the statement. But since he failed to
identify the accused his testimony proved in vain
to link any of the accused with the case.

328. He further submitted that PW-132, Vinod

374

Kumar , Manager of Surya Guest House, Delhi had
allegedly identified the accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara and Balwant Singh, as the two persons who
came to see accused Manjinder Singh since
absconding but this stand of this witness is not
plausible and admissible as first of all, he was
shown the photographs of the accused persons and he
identified the accused on the basis of the
photographs and that identity is not admissible in
evidence as discussed earlier. At the same time,
the entry relating to check in by Manjinder Singh
only for 4-5 hours is seems to be a fabricated
entry and lastly it can not believed that a Manager
of Hotel remember the faces of the persons after
six years of having seen them, if at all had the
occasion to see. Otherwise, also meeting one
Manjinder Singh by this accused is by itself is not
sufficient to say that he met him for this
conspiracy .

329. As far as the testimony of PW-130, Rajesh

Malhotra and PW-133, Dinesh Kumar, is concerned,
both these witnesses have alleged that accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara used to make International
calls from their STD booths and he identified their
booths in their possession. However, the evidence
relating to identification of booths is not
admissible in evidence being not within the preview
of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as per the law
already relied upon as it is not discovery of a

375

fact distinctly related to the crime. In support of
this plea, he has relied upon Anter Singh Versus
State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR, 2004 Supreme
Court, page 2865, Prabhoo Versus State of U.P
reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court, page 1113,
Ms.Arunwan Thamvaro Versus State reported in AIR
2005(4) RCR (Criminal) , page 121, State of M.P
Versus Dhannalal Moruji reported in 1961 (2)
Cri.L.J, page 238.

330. As far as PW-134, Murli Dharan,is
concerned, he has failed to identify any of the
accused persons to say that they used to make
international calls from his STD PCO at Nagpur
during the month of October and November, 1995. As
such, his testimony is immaterial. As far PW-135
Mahesh Pal, is concerned, he has allegedly
identified accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh
Hawara as two persons, who used to come to see
Ashok Kumar at Fatehgarh, (U.P) but as discussed
earlier the identification of accused on the basis
of photographs shown to this witness is
meaningless .

331. Similarly PW-121, Anil Bhatia and PW-122,
Bhupinder Singh, are the witnesses in whose
presence the accused Jagtar Singh Hawara made the
disclosure statements, Ex.PW121/l and Ex.PW121/2.
However, the testimony of both these witnesses are
not reliable as recovery of alleged Map,

376

Ex.PW121/3, depicting the Secretariat etc., is not
a discovery of a fact as per the spirit of Section
27, as discussed earlier and thus can not be made
basis to link the accused Jagtar singh Hawara with
the case in hand.

332. At the same time, it is admitted case of
PW-121 that Ram Singh @ Kuldip Singh resided in
H.No.A-341 Naya Gaon till September, 1995 and if it
is so, it can not be believed that there can be
recovery of anything from that house after a period
of six months on 23. 1.1996. On the other hand, it
shows that this document has been fabricated by the
Police just to implicate the accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara. At the same time, it is also proved on the
file that the CBI had already raided that house on
12/13.9.1995 and if it is so, there is no guestion
of making any recovery in the year 1996.

333. Similarly the report of two experts namely
PW-242, Dr.M.A.Ali and PW-234, S.L.Mukhi, hand
writing experts, to establish the hand writing and
authorship of the map, Ex.PW121/3, in the hands of
Jagtar Singh Hawara, is also not admissible because
first of all PW-234 examined these map with the
specimen hand writing of Jagtar Singh Hawara and as
per his report Ex.PW234/l held that it can not be
linked with each other. If it was so, there was no
question of any further report but to falsely
implicate the accused, the same documents were

377

compared again by PW-242, M.A.Ali, who also failed
to establish the authorship of the map in a
convincing manner and as such evidence of both
these witnesses is meaningless. Similarly, no
permission of any Magistrate or consent of accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara was taken before taking his
specimen hand writing etc and if it is so, as
discussed earlier, those hand writings can not be
made basis to link the hand writing of the accused
and thus the accused.

334. He further submitted that it is alleged by

the prosecution that accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
along with accused Jagtar Singh Tara purchased the
car No. DBA-9598 from PW-32, S.K.Dutta on
20.8.1995. However, as discussed earlier the
testimony of PW-32 is not reliable for the various
reasons and at the same time, he has failed to
identify the accused Jagtar Singh Haweara as the
other person, who accompanied Jagtar Singh Tara to
purchase the Car. At the same time, he has improved
his statement by saying that second gentleman was
aged about 24 to 28 years whereas in his statement
u/s 161 Cr.P.C, he disclosed the age of that
person as 21 years. In the court he alleged that
both the accused came to him firstly at 2.00 PM and
again at 4.30 PM but this fact was also not
disclosed by this witness in his statement u/s 161
Cr.P.C.

378

335. This witness tried to say that the second
person, who accompanied Jagtar Singh Tara who
represented himself as Basant singh, handed over
the bag containing cash to him but this fact was
also not disclosed by him in his statement u/s 161
Cr.P.C and this improvement was also made by the
witness on the behest of CBI to implicate accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara but this endeavor could not
succeed as he has failed to identify the accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara.

336. Again during the trial PW-32 alleged that
after getting the photo copies of the documents of
the car, he handed over the original to Basant
Singh and retained the photo copies with him, but
this fact was also not disclosed by him in his
statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. At the same time, there
is no explanation on the file as to why this
witness failed to hand over the documents, relating
to the sale of car to accused Jagtar Singh Tara,
from 1.9.1995 to 20.9.1995, despite the fact that
he was repeatedly interrogated by the CBI in that
regard .

337. At the same time it is admitted case of
the prosecution and this witness that he was not
knowing those two persons personally or otherwise
and if it was so, a test identification parade
should have been conducted but same had not been
conducted and as such the identification of only

379

accused Jagtar Singh Tara by this witness for the
first time in the court, that too on the basis of
the photographs already shown to him, is
meaningless .

338. Above all, he has failed to identify
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara as the second person,
who accompanied the said Basant Singh. Although
he had identified the photo graph of Jagtar Singh
Hawara as Ex.PW32/9 but as discussed earlier this
identification is no identification in the eyes of
law, specially when he had not given any details of
the feature of those two persons. Thus the
testimony of this witness is not only insufficient
but also procured and thus failed to link the
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara with the purchase of
car. If it is so, there is no evidence on the file
even to link the accused Jagtar Singh Hawara.

339. Concluding his case, the learned defence
counsel submitted that as per the detailed
discussion made above, it is proved on the file
that CBI has not at all investigated the case
within the law of investigations and evidence Act
but have projected a false version on the asking of
the Punjab Police then headed by K. P. S.Gill and
by suppressing the material evidence, fabricated
the true genesis of the occurrence and put forward
a concocted story only to falsely implicate the
accused persons except accused Balwant Singh, who

380

has admitted his guilt and there is not even an
iota of evidence on the file to show that any of
the accused persons facing trial n this case were
related with this conspiracy either remotely or
directly or aided or abetted the commission of the
crime as alleged by the prosecution. Resultantly,
he submitted that all of them are entitled for
benefit of doubt and be acguitted by passing severe
strictures against the CBI for manipulating the
facts on the basis of false and tainted
investigation .

Points for Determination

340. After due consideration of the rival

contentions of both the parties and after going
through the voluminous evidence brought on the file
by the prosecution, which is further supplemented
by the evidence led by the defence and after
considering the case law relied upon by both the
parties, it comes out that although accused Balwant
Singh in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C as well as
during the trial and arguments admitted in clear
words and with loud voice that he and deceased
Dilawar Singh had killed the deceased Beant Singh,
when accused Dilawar Singh blow him off, being a
human bomb, near the car of S. Beant Singh,
resulting into his death and the death of 16 other
persons. But this theory has been disputed by
defence .

381

341. On the other hand, the learned defence
counsels have put forward their own theory totally
different from the facts admitted by accused
Balwant Singh, denying the factum of killing of
Beant singh by assassin Dilawar Singh, being a
human bomb made of RDX and other articles. On the
other hand, it is alleged that the true genesis of
the occurrence has been suppressed by the C.B.I, in
collusion with the Punjab Police and a case of
multiple bomb blasts at different places, which
took place because of the lapse on part of the
security agencies, has been converted into a human
bomb case just to falsely implicate the accused
persons .

342. Thus in order to decide the controversy
from its beginning till the end and to know the
true genesis of occurrence leading to the blast and
resultant loss of life and property and by whom and
in what manner, the following points are determined
and required consideration : -

1. Whether on 31.8.1995 at about 5.10 PM
assassin Dialwar Singh, being a human bomb
exploded himself near the car cade of Beant
Singh then chief Minister Punjab near the
VIP gate of Haryana Civil Secretariat,
being armed with a belt bomb consisting of
RDX as the explosive with other articles,

382

killing the deceased Beant Singh and
himself including 16 other innocent
persons and causing severe injuries to 15
others .

2. Whether this bomb blast was caused by
the deceased Dilawar Singh in execution
of a conspiracy hatched by accused Wadhawa
Singh and Mehal Singh (proclaimed
offenders) with the other accused persons
who were absconding and who are facing
trial in this case and all of them were
the part and parcel of that conspiracy and
committed different acts of omissions and
commissions in pursuance of their
conspiracy leading to the killing of
deceased Beant Singh and others.

3 . Final Order .

343. After due consideration of the marathon

arguments of both the parties and the plethora of
oral and documentary evidence, briefed above, and
scanning and considering the same as per the
proposition of legal principles, relied upon by
both the parties in abundance, the decision on the
above points, with reasons for its decision, is as
follows .

383

Reasons for decision

Point No 1

344. First of all let us take the first point
for determination. As mentioned above, the first
and the foremost point for consideration is to know
what was the true genesis of occurrence leading to
blast at the V.I. P. Gate of Punjab & Haryana Civil
Secretariat on 31.8.1995 leading to the death of
deceased Beant Singh, then Chief Minister of Punjab
and 16 other persons and injuries to 15 other
persons .

345. Since it is a question of fact required to
be decided on the basis of the evidence led by the
prosecution and it was also the duty of the
prosecution to prove this fact with cogent and
reliable evidence to proceed further.

346. The first point for determination
mentioned above involves the following questions:

(l.a) firstly whether the blast took
place at the Civil Secretariat on
31.8.1995, which is not a disputed fact,
was a single blast caused by a human bomb
or it was a case of multiple bomb blasts
at different places?

(l.b) secondly , if question no. (a) is
proved in affirmative as per the version
of the prosecution , whether deceased
Dilawar Singh acted as a human bomb and

384

blew off himself
Chief Minister
occurrence ?

near the
leading

carcade of
to this

QUESTION (l.a)

Whether the blast took place at the Civil
Secretariat on 31 .8 .1995 , which is not a
disputed fact, was a single blast caused
by a human bomb or it was a case of
multiple bomb blasts at different places?

347. Since this question involves knowing the
true genesis of occurrence and based on factual
evidence, let us scan the evidence of the
prosecution to decide this controversy.

348. As stated earlier, the case of the
prosecution is that assassin Dilawar Singh, acting
as a human bomb blew off himself near the carcade
of S.Beant Singh, Chief Minister, Punjab in
consequences of a deep rooted conspiracy hatched
by the accused persons facing trial in this case
along with the other accused named in the charge
sheet. As such let us see whether the prosecution
has been able bring home this fact or not?

349. Needless to say, it is undisputed case of
the defence that deceased Beant Singh, then Chief
Minister, Punjab along with 16 other persons died
in a blast on 31.8.1995 near the VIP gate of Punjab

385

& Haryana Civil Secretariat. Undisputedly there is
no direct eye witness to the occurrence to depose,
how the bomb blast took place and by whom and in
what manner. However, PW-218, Harkesh Kumar, one
of the NSG Commandos of the Security Staff, has
given the first hand version of the blast. But
apart from this the entire case of the prosecution
is based on circumstantial evidence collected at
the spot and its assessment to show the nature of
the blast.

350. Needless to say, it is well settled
proposition of law that while dealing with a case
of grave nature like the present one, there is
always a danger that conjecture and suspicion may
take the place of legal truth. But to prove
conspiracy hatched to commit a heinous crime,
circumstantial evidence brought on records must be
such which would have no loose ends to tie.

351. To know the true genesis and find the
guilt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the guidelines
from time to time and the process started with
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P, AIR
1952, Supreme Court, Page 343 wherein the law was
laid down in the following terms :-

"It is well to remember that in cases
where the evidence is of a circumstantial
nature, the circumstances from which the

386

conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should
be in the first instance be fully
established, and all the facts so
established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. Again, the circumstances should
be of a conclusive nature and tendency
and they should be such as to exclude
every hypothesis but the one proposed to
be proved. In other words, there must be
a chain of evidence so far complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence
of the accused and it must be such as to
show that within all human probability
the act must have been done by the
accused .

352. Yet again in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda

Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984, Supreme Court,
1622, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it
has been held that the following conditions must be
fulfilled before a case based on circumstantial
evidence is said to be fully proved including the
guilt of the accused persons :-

1) the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should be fully established. The
circumstances concerned must or
should and not may be established.

2) The facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused, that is
to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty.

3) The circumstances should be of a

387

conclusive nature and tendency.

4) They should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be
proved; and

5) there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.

was further observed that:

"We can fully understand that though
the case superficially viewed bears an
ugly look so as to prima facie shock
the conscience of any Court yet
suspicion, however great it may be,
can not take the place of legal proof.
A moral conviction however strong or
genuine can not amount to a legal
conviction supportable in law. It must
be recalled that the well established
rule of criminal justice is that
"fouler the crime higher the proof".
In the instant case, the life and
liberty of a subject was at stake. As
the accused was given a capital
sentence, a very careful, cautious and
meticulous approach was necessary to
be made . "

"The murder might have been
committed in a very cruel and
revolting manner but that may itself
be a reason for scrutinizing the
evidence a bit more closely."

Cautioning on this aspect, In Kashmira

388

Singh Vs State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 159, it was

observed that by the Hon'ble apex court :-

"The murder was a particularly cruel
and revolting one and for that reason
it will be necessary to examine the
evidence with more than ordinary care
lest the shocking nature of the crime
induce an instinctive reaction against
a dispassionate judicial scrutiny of
the facts and law."

354. Similarly in Swaran Singh Rattan Singh Vs.
State of Punjab, AIR, 1957, SC 637, it was observed

that : -

"Considered as a whole, the
prosecution story may be true; but
between may be true and must be true'
there is inevitably a long distance
must be covered by legal, reliable and
unimpeachable evidence before an
accused can be convicted."

355. Reiterating same thought in Mousam Singha
Roy and Others Vs. State of West Bengal (2003) SLT
202-III (2003) CCR 250 (SC) = (2003) 12 SCC 377, it

was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that : -

"Before we conclude, we must place on
record the fact that we are not
unaware of the degree of agony and
frustration that maybe caused to the
society in general and the families of
the victims in particular, by the fact
that a heinous crime like this goes
unpunished, but then the law does not
permit the Courts to punish the
accused on the basis of moral

389

conviction or on suspicion alone. The
burden of proof in a criminal trial
never shifts, and it is always the
burden of the prosecution to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt on the
basis of acceptable evidence"
"It is also a settled principle of
criminal jurisprudence that the more
serious the offence, the stricter the
degree of proof, since a higher degree
of assurance is reguired to convict
the accused."

356. Keeping into consideration the above

settled proposition of law it comes out that to
assess the nature of the blast, its magnitude and
the nature of explosive device used for the blast,
the material evidence on the file is the evidence
collected by the investigating agencies
immediately after the blast including the
inspection of the spot by the Ballistics and other
experts, coupled with the first hand version of the
blast given by the persons present near the site of
blast and the reports of the experts after
examining the incriminating articles recovered from
the scene of the crime showing the nature of the
bomb used and its conseguences including the
medical evidence.

357. In addition to this the case of the

prosecution is that immediately after the blast
two unidentified legs and a skull was recovered
from near the Car of the CM and later on, when
scene of crime was examined by the experts it was

390

found that the blast has been caused by a human
bomb and the explosive device used is a belt bomb
wrapped around the waist consisting of RDX and
other explosives and missiles etc. and two legs and
the skull is of the human bomb, who was later on
identified to be Dilawar Singh.

358. Let us scan evidence to ascertain the

above discussed circumstances in the light of above
settled proposition of law. First of all let us
take the statement of PW-218, Harkesh Singh, who
was one of the NSG Commandos of the NSG Squad,
which used to provide mobile security to Shri Beant
Singh, then Chief Minister of Punjab. Before
discussing his testimony it will be apposite to say
that it is undisputed case of the defence that the
convoy of the CM always move in the following
order :

1. Vehicle No . 1

2. Then, Vehicle No . 2

3. Then, three Bullet
proof Ambassador Cars
No. 3, 4 & 5

Pilot vehicle of CRPF
Pilot vehicle of NSGs
Commandos

Those days these cars
were firstly
Ambassador Car
No.PB 0 8 34 6 9
having

its driver Jagdish
Singh;

391

Secondly Car bearing
registration No.PB-27-
-6516 having driver
Baljit Singh; and

thirdly Car no. PB 27
6514 having driver
Igbal Singh.

4. Then, Vehicle No . 6 : Escort vehicle of

NSG Commandos.

5 . Then , Vehicle No . 7 : Escort Vehicle of

CRPF

6. Then, Vehicle No . 8 : Ambulance

359. Giving the above format of the convoy of
Chief Minister, PW-218, Harkesh Singh, NSG
Commando, deposed that on 31.8.1995, Shri Beant
Singh, then CM of Punjab, left his residence for
Punjab Secretariat at about 1.25 p.m while
traveling in Car No. PB-08-3469 and after arrival
of the CM at Secretariat, all the three Cars of CM
were parked in the Portico meant for VIP vehicles
and the drivers locked the Cars and two security
guards one from the CRPF and one of NSG used to
guard the vehicles.

360. He further submitted that at about 5.00

392

PM, they got an information that CM is about to
leave the Secretariat and accordingly all of them
took positions and parked the vehicles in the above
order and at about 5.05 PM, Shri Beant Singh, then,
CM came in the Porch and at that time he was facing
towards him and NSG guard Kultar Singh was
following him and when they were ready to move on
the directions of their SP D . K . Tripathy , the Chief
Minister was talking to Dr.Duggal and one other
person and when he was about to sit in a car, one
person, who was without any turban or cap but who
was wearing a police uniform, rushed towards the CM
and thereafter a blast took place resulting into
lot of damage to the vehicles and the building and
a fire also started. He further deposed that K.Rama
Rao, who was to sit in his Gypsy also fell down
because of the impact of the blast and thereafter
they rushed towards the Car of CM and dragged out
the driver Jagdish Singh, who was injured to a
safer distance but they could not save Beant Singh
as the car was aflamed and thereafter the fire
brigade reached at the spot and the further action
was taken.

361. Similarly, PW-78, Dinesh Kumar Tripathy,

who was then SP Security to the Chief Minister,
also discloses the same facts and disclosed that as
soon as the CM reached the VIP gate to board his
car bearing registration PB-08-3469, he called
Ranjodh Singh Mann to see him at his residence. He

393

has also given the description of all the persons
who were standing near the car of CM. He further
deposed that when after saying Ranjodh Singh Mann
to come to his Bungalow, the CM was to sit in the
car, Dr. Anil Duggal started talking to him and he
left to sit in his Car, which was just behind the
car of the CM but when he reached near the door of
that car, a powerful blast took place and he was
injured because of the blast and also become
unconscious .

362. Both these witnesses have categorically
deposed that there was a single blast resulting
into death of Beant Singh along with other
persons. At the same time PW-218 has categorically
deposed that the blast took place only when that
unknown person in Police uniform reached near the
CM. The testimony of both these witnesses as to
the facts how the blast took place remain
unrebutted and goes to show that when the CM was to
sit in the Car, one unknown person in Police
uniform comes near him and then a blast took place
as deposed by both these eye witnesses and this
fact alone shows that it was a case of single blast
caused by a human bomb.

363. Even otherwise, as discussed above,
accused Balwant Singh from the very beginning of
the trial as well as during recording of his
statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, categorically disclosed

394

that on 31.8.1995, he along with deceased Dilawar
Singh killed Beant Singh in a bomb blast, which was
caused by deceased Dilawar Singh by working as a
human bomb and a belt bomb wrapped around the waist
of Dilawar Singh was blew off by him after reaching
near the Chief Minister.

364. Not even this, in his written explanation
furnished by accused Balwant Singh after the
conclusion of his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C,
Ex.D(BS)/A, he reiterated the above facts
justifying the killing of Beant Singh by him and
deceased Dilawar Singh because of the atrocities
committed by Beant Singh towards the Sikh
community and for claiming himself as messenger of
peace and incarnation of Guru Gobind Singh and he
again reiterated in his own hands that on 31.8.1995
deceased Bhai Dilawar Singh wrapped a bomb around
his waist and collided himself with Beant Singh and
killed him, further saying that he was also
involved in the killing of Beant Singh for which he
has no remorse.

365. Not even this, as mentioned earlier, on
18.03.2006, when recording of the statement of this
witness was started and first guestion was put to
him he read out a four pages note, which has been
marked A-l to A- 4 and which was later on exhibited
as Ex.D(BS)/A. Even prior to that on 24.12.1997 and
24.1.1998 accused Balwant Singh has filed written

395

application admitting the facts mentioned above.

366. Above all during the recording of

statement of the prosecution witnesses, when
statement of PW-60, Raju Tamir Haran was recorded
and he deposed that accused Balwant Singh was
working as Security guard with his maternal grand
father, Bhushan Sirhandi and he used to have a
Scooter, Ex.P77 and during that time he along with
his friend deceased Dilawar Singh used to come to
his house.

367. He also deposed that on one occasion

about 2-3 months prior to the assassination of
Beant Singh, he attended a call which was for
Balwant Singh and the person calling identified
himself as uncle of Balwant Singh and was speaking
from Delhi and had asked him to convey to Balwant
Singh that he i.e Balwant Singh should meet him at
Gurudwara Seesh Ganj , New Delhi and on the next
morning he conveyed this message to Balwant Singh
and he also identified the hand writing of accused
Balwant Singh on the slip, Ex.PW60/A, on which the
accused Balwant Singh has written a couplet for
deceased Dilawar Singh, when he was going to blow
himself .

368. After the recording of the examination in

chief of this witness, when opportunity to cross
examine was given to accused Balwant Singh, he gave

396

a writing, Ex. CD/1 and stated that he do not want
to cross examine this witness as he has stated the
truth and further admitted that he has killed the
deceased Beant Singh with the help of deceased
Dilawar Singh by way of human bomb. Not even this
when PW-95, Tejinder Singh deposed about making of
extra judicial confession by accused Balwant Singh
giving all the details of conspiracy and role of
each and every accused person from its beginning
till its execution and when opportunity to cross
examination him was given to accused, he suggested
to him that whatever has been stated by him against
them is correct except gua accused Gurmit Singh.

369. Last but not least, even during the course
of arguments, accused Balwant Singh submitted again
a writing which was made part of record on
20.4.2007 taking same stand.

370. It has been alleged by learned defence
counsels that the admissions made by accused
Balwant Singh in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C can
not be made sole basis, either to assess the
nature of blast or to convict the accused Balwant
Singh or any other accused, as per the law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohan Singh Vs. Prem
Singh, AIR 2002, Supreme Court, page 3582 and by a
division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Mohan Versus State of M.P. 2005 (1) RCR page 3.

397

371. However, after going through the case law

relied upon by defence, it comes out that it was
never held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the High
Court that a conviction can not be based on the
confession made by the accused during his statement
u/s 313 Cr.P.C but it was held that the conviction
can not be based on the basis of the part admission
made in the statement recorded, u/s 313 Cr.P.C, if
the accused does not confess and only explain the
circumstances appearing against him in the evidence
and sets up his own version and seeks to explain
his conduct pleading that he has committed no
offence .

372. Thus it was held that where the statement

made by accused is partly inculpatory, the court
has to accept it or reject it in whole but it can
not convict the accused relying on the inculpatory
part and ignoring exculpatory part. However, it was
clearly held that that if the accused in his
examination u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C, confesses to the
commission of the crime charged against him, the
court can rely upon the confession and proceed to
convict him and the crux of the matter was that an
admission made by an accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C of a
fact without admitting the guilt can not be used
against him to base a conviction.

373. However, in the present case, as discussed

earlier, the accused Balwant Singh in clear terms

398

and repeatedly, during the different stages of the
trial, reiterated that he and deceased Dilawar
Singh have killed Beant Singh by a belt bomb, which
was wrapped by deceased Dilawar Singh, on his waist
and blew off himself near Beant Singh. Thus it is a
case where the accused Balwant Singh has admitted
the nature of blast and the nature of the explosive
device used and the person who acted as human bomb
and then it is further corroborated by the other
evidence. Thus no further discussion is reguired to
burden this judgment to reach to this conclusion.
Thus the stand taken by both the witnesses i.e PW-
218 and PW-78, coupled with the admissions made by
accused Balwant Singh and the evidence brought on
the file, clearly spells out that it was neither a
case of multiple bomb blasts nor a case of blast by
a remote control device as alleged by the defence
but a case of single blast that too caused by a
Suicide Bomber.

374. At the same time, it is also proved that

immediately after the blast, when the information
was sent to the Police, PW-240, Nanha Ram, then SHO
of PS North, reached at the spot and cordoned the
area of the blast and on inspection of the spot, he
found about 10 dead bodies lying at the spot and on
further inspection he also found two severed legs,
one near the Car of the CM and the other at the
distance of 6 to 7 feet towards VIP gate and a
skull near the Car without torso. He also prepared

399

a rough site plan of place of occurrence Ex. 240/2
showing the existing state of affairs at the scene
of crime.

375. He also deposed that Police photographer
as well as Dr.Mishra of FSL Punjab also came on
the spot and as per his request, both of them took
the photographs of the scene of crime from
different angles. The prosecution has relied about
70 photographs Ex.PW119/l to Ex.PW119/70 and PW-240
has categorically stated that the scene of crime as
shown in the photographs is the same as he had seen
on the day of blast. He has categorically stated
that these photographs includes the photographs
taken by the Police photographs as well as by the
experts of FSL, Punjab and experts called by the
CBI .

376. Not even this, it is also proved on the
file that on 1.9.1995 the investigation of this
case was entrusted to CBI and PW-247, R.S.Punia,
then DSP, CBI, was appointed out as Chief
Investigating Officer. As per the directions of PW-
247, PW-248, S.N.Saxena was deputed to reach the
spot and start investigations and he has also
deposed that after reaching at the spot, Nanha Ram
handed over the above photographs to him and when
he inspected the spot he found the scene of crime
in the same manner as shown in these photographs.

400

377. Not even this, the CBI has also deputed

the experts to examine the scene of crime and one
of these experts was PW-165, Roop Singh, a
ballistics expert and he has also deposed that he
examined and inspected the scene of occurrence from
1.9.1995 to 3.9.1995 and under his direction and
supervision, the CBI official has taken into
possession certain material articles from the spot
and the same were examined by him in the Laboratory
in various divisions with the help of other
experts .

378. Even the major parts of the damaged car of

the Chief Minister were also taken to the
Laboratory along with all the incriminating
articles lifted from the spot, recovered from the
accused persons and otherwise, the details of which
are mentioned in the reports, Ex.PW165/l to
Ex.Pwl65/7, consisting of bullet proof Ambassador
car no. PB-08-3469 and the debris collected from
the scene of crime including the blood stained and
shattered clothes , metallic pieces, glass pieces,
dust, damaged paper pieces, flesh and bone pieces,
wall plaster pieces, aluminum metal, paper and card
board pieces, burnt plastic pieces, the sweepings
collected from the floor of the car of the CM,
damaged and shattered identity cards, blood stained
turbans, rexine and foam pieces, damaged number
plate of the car of CM etc.

401

379. It is further proved on the file that all
the experts after examining the scene of crime and
all the above mentioned incriminating articles in
different laboratories of CFSL i.e in the
biological, physical and ballistics division, as
per different reports, specially the reports of
PW-165 i.e Ex.PW165/l to Ex.PW165/7 and PW-248/2
of Ms. Balinder Kaur, an expert of CFSL,
Chandigarh, concluded that a powerful improvised
explosive device (IED) had exploded at the rear
left side just near the dickey portion of the car
of the CM, in which he was going to sit, at a
height of above 3 feet above the ground level and
high explosive of about 2 kg of quantity along with
other missiles in the form of spherical iron walls,
iron nuts, bolts, thick iron rebuts etc were used
on the blast and on the basis of examination of two
shattered legs and skull it was also concluded that
the explosive device was wrapped on the torso of
the person, who could have acted as a suicide
bomber .

380. One of the objections as to the
authenticity of the report of PW-165, raised by the
defence was that this witness has no where stated
that he has examined two legs and a skull, when he
examined the scene of crime.

381. However, after considering the factual
aspect with the legal principles, it comes out that

402

there is no force in this plea because during the
cross examination, this witness has deposed that he
was taken to the mortuary by the CBI officials and
perhaps it was in General Hospital Sector 16,
Chandigarh and he was categorical as to the
examination of two legs and the skull and its
inspection by him. As such there is nothing on the
file to disbelieve the stand taken by this witness
as to his expert opinion as to the nature of the
blast and its magnitude.

382. At the same time, this witness has further
justified his opinion by saying that if explosive
device is exploded while being kept or planted
inside or beneath the car, the entire car get
shattered into pieces and there will be a definite
mark regarding the seat of explosion, known as
crater but he has not found any such symptoms, when
he examined the scene of crime as well as the car
of CM and as such there is no possibility of any
blast from inside the car or planted beneath it. He
further deposed that after examining debris he
found traces of RDX which shows that RDX was used
as explosive to blast.

383. Not even this, another expert Ms.Balinder
Kaur of CFSL Chandigarh was also called at the spot
and she has also examined the scene of crime and
the incriminating articles taken into possession by
PW-240, on 1.9.1995 along with the cotton swabs,

403

taken from the car of the CM by Balinder Kaur
personally and which were were taken to the
Laboratory on the same day and as per the report,
Ex.PW248/2, which is admissible in evidence under
the provisions of Section 293 of the Cr.P.C,
Mrs. Balinder Kaur after examining all these
articles for the chemical analysis, concluded that
the traces of RDX and PETN, which are high
explosives, were detected in the articles recovered
from the spot.

384. As far as the grounds pointed out by

learned defence counsel to challenge the
investigation and the conduct of the investigating
agency is concerned, no doubt there are some gaps,
lacunas and infirmities in the investigations
carried out by the Investigating Agency, however,
keeping in view the nature of crime and the
circumstances in which the investigations were
taken over by the CBI, no material dent can be
inferred as far as the material question as to
assess the nature of blast and its consequences are
concerned .

385. The main vehicle i.e the car of the CM, in

which he was going to sit, when this blast took
place and which was the target of the assassin, was
duly examined by the expert witnesses including PW-
165, Roop Singh a Ballistics Expert, who has based
his opinion as to the nature of the blast and the

404

device used, after examining the damaged car and
its parts and other incriminating articles found
near the same. Similarly, PW-165 has given a
definite report as to the magnitude of the blast,
its nature, the device used and the explosives
involved with complete details of the articles
examined, its identity and nature and the tests
applied. To further clarify it, it comes out that
the main report of PW-165, in this regard is Ex.PW-
165/1 and a perusal of this report shows that all
the incriminating articles recovered from the spot
from 1.9.1995 to 3.9.1995 by PW-240, Inspector
Nanha Ram of Chandigarh Police and the other
Investigating Officers of the CBI, were sent to him
and all those articles were in 27 parcels duly
sealed with the seal of 'AK' and all these parcels
contained the debris collected from the spot as
well as the damaged number plate of the car of the
CM, its tail light and after examination of all
these articles in the various laboratories coupled
with the detailed examination of the scene of
explosion by PW-165 along with other experts from
1.9.1995 to 3.9.1995 including the examination of
the badly damaged car no . PB-08-34 69 which was the
target of the blast as well as two legs and a
skull, a final report was prepared to assess the
nature of blast and it was concluded that this
blast is a single blast, caused by a powerful
improvised explosive device by a human bomb. Not
even this, he has also identified all those

405

incriminating articles in the court as part of
articles Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-218 except those articles
which have not been examined by him.

386. The same was also confirmed by the other
expert witnesses including Mrs Balinder Kaur of
CFSL, Chandigarh, who has also examined the scene
of the crime and took into possession certain
incriminating articles as mentioned in her report,
Ex.PW248/l and corroborated the opinion of PW-165.
Then there are photographers of Chandigarh Police,
CFSL, Chandigarh and the CBI, who took the
photographs of the scene of crime and those were
supported by the ocular version of the experts and
the Investigating Officers, who have also assessed
the scene of crime.

387. PW-241 to PW-248, who have investigated
the case at one stage or the other, after taking
over of the investigation by the CBI, categorically
deposed as to what was done on what day and they
have also deposed as to the proceedings conducted
by them on 1.9.1995. At the same time, PW-178,
Dr . S . K . Chadha, an expert of CFSL, Delhi has also
proved that on the directions of the CBI, he
inspected the suspected car No. DBA-9598 in the
Police Station and also examined the scene of
crime. Even PW-165 has prepared an inspection memo
after inspecting the scene of crime and he had
deposed that he took that report with him to

406

prepare his
circumstances,
record .

final report and under
the same was not made part

these
of the

388. As far as the plea of learned defence
counsel regarding non-production of first
inspection memo allegedly prepared by PW-248, is
concerned, PW-248, has categorically explained that
he has prepared a separate inspection memo while
inspecting the spot but the same was made part of
the case diary and he further stated that he had
got prepared a scaled site plan of the scene of
crime, Ex.PW248/3, which was got prepared from
Architects, which clearly indicates the position of
the dead bodies lying on the spot as well as the
position of Carcade of the CM at the time of its
explosion, depicting the entire nature of the scene
of crime. Not even this, during the cross
examination of PW-248, the case diary was produced
in the court and it was observed that the
observation memo dated 1.9.1995 was part of the
case diary and nothing was recovered or seized vide
this memo and as such it was rightly not made part
of the record.

389. All the articles, taken from the spot by
various Investigating Officers as per the
directions of the experts have been sealed and sent
to CFSL and the details of all these articles are
duly mentioned in the reports of the experts

407

including Ex.PW-165/1 to Ex.PW-165/7 and Ex.PW-
248/2. Even in the report Ex.PW165/7, it is
mentioned that the wind screen was also examined
while preparing this report.

390. Non-production of the Video cassette
allegedly prepared at the spot showing the scene of
crime, itself is not sufficient to say that it was
so done with an intention to suppress any fact
specially when there is no evidence on the file to
say that any Videography of the scene of the crime
was also conducted and if so by whom and on whose
direction .

391. PW-240 has no where admitted the making of
the video film of the scene of the crime as alleged
by learned defence counsel. On the contrary, he has
alleged that he has got only the scene of
occurrence photographed by the Police Photographer
and there is no other evidence on the file to show
this fact. The plea of learned defence counsels
that in the report of Manik Sabharwal, mark CQ/1,
there is mention of study of the video film, can
not be made basis to say that any video film was
prepared by the Investigating agencies because this
report has not proved on the file. Even if it was
so, it has been categorically explained by PW-248
that there was no source of making of video film
and its authenticity, as such, same was not made
part of record.

408

392. Above all, if the defence was so concerned
with the need of Video film it can easily summon
the same in the defence evidence or this fact can
be corroborated by summoning Mr.Manik Sabharwal in
the defence as this witness has not been examined
by the prosecution and his report is also not
relied upon but it has not been so done which
shows that as far as the factual position of the
scene of crime and its nature is concerned, it is
not disputed as the only purpose of the video film
was to depict the same which is otherwise proved on
the file in view of the photographs and the ocular
version of the prosecution witnesses as discussed
earlier, including the recovery of two legs and a
head of unidentified person.

393. Report of Manik Sabharwal an expert of the
Army, mark-CQ/1, is part of the record. No doubt,
the prosecution has not examined this witness to
prove his report and opinion as to the nature of
the blast. However, the same was brought on record
by the defence by putting the same to the Chief
Investigating Officer. As such, no adverse
inference can be drawn as the prosecution has not
relied upon the same, specially when it can be
considered and taken into consideration once it was
brought on record by the defence itself. As stated
earlier, the defence was also at liberty to summon
and examine this witness in defence so as to refute

409

the authenticity of the nature of the blast and the
scene of crime as proved on the file by the
prosecution .

394. PW-240 has categorically explained that

the photographs, Ex.PW119/l to Ex.PW119/94 includes
the photographs prepared and taken by the Police
photographers, expert of FSL, Punjab and by the
experts of the CBI and it also includes the
photographs of the two legs and a skull. Even
otherwise PW-119, Dr.Gopal Ji Mishra, has also
brought the negatives of the photographs and
produced the same in the court. But those were
returned to him with the permission of the court
and he had categorically deposed that he reached at
the place of occurrence at about 5.45 p.m. i.e
immediately after the blast and took about 70
photographs. He further deposed that on 2.9.1995 he
went to the mortuary and took the photographs of
the two legs and skull which are Ex.PW119/71 to
Ex.PW119/94. No doubt, some of the photographs
produced in evidence by him were not taken by
him, but it makes no difference as to its
admissbility . Not even his, this witness has also
explained that when he took the photographs of the
seat of blast near the car of CM, he found that the
right leg was found near the rear left wheel of the
blasted car and the second leg was found at the
entrance gate of Secretariat. He also explained
that the shoe was in right leg. Thus the testimony
of this witness further proves the authenticity of

410

photographs as well as scene of crime as shown in
these photographs. Not even this, the photographs
of the scene of occurrence are further proved by
the statement of the Police Officers, who visited
the scene of occurrence including PW-242 to PW-248,
who are the main Investigating Officers. As such,
this plea has no basis to assail the investigations
conducted by the Chandigarh Police or the CBI.

395. Non-production of the vehicles involved in

the blast is no ground to draw any adverse
inference qua the investigations specially when
factum of blast is not disputed. Since, no specific
part of the belt bomb used by the assassin was
traceable or available at the spot, its recovery is
thus not possible.

396. The recovery of weapons of the various

security agencies has no relevancy as it was never
the case of prosecution or the defence that any
firing took place at the scene of crime. As such
the fact how many weapons were damaged and how many
were not traceable after the blast is not relevant
as far as the present trial is concerned. Not even
this, a perusal of the court record shows that
during the pendency of commitment proceedings
before the CJM, Chandigarh, the Commandant first
Battalion, HAP, Ambala City moved an application
for the release of the arms and ammunition of their
Battalion, which were taken into possession by the

411

Chandigarh Police at the time of inspection of spot
and on that application the learned CJM, Chandigarh
vide his order dated 23.2.1996 released the same to
the applicant and this fact further document shows
that all the arms and ammunition found at the spot
were taken into possession and were later on
released having no link with this case.

397. No doubt, the investigating officers were
required to prepare the site plans of the various
places of recoveries of incriminating articles in
consequences to the disclosure statements of the
accused persons or otherwise and those have not
been made but it does not make the recovery
proceedings doubtful ipso facto. At the same as far
as the recovery of incriminating articles from the
scene off crime is concerned, PW-240, Nanha Ram,
SHO and the first investigating officer, has
categorically stated that he prepared a site plan
of scene of crime, Ex,PW240/2, showing all the
existing state of affairs at the spot immediately
after his reaching at the spot even before starting
recovery proceeding of incriminating articles.

398. No adverse inference for not recording the
statements of the two drivers of the two other
cars of the CM or other material witnesses, for the
purpose of registration of FIR or investigations,
can be drawn because none of them were the eye
witnesses in true sense to say that they have seen

412

the deceased Dilawar Singh while detonating the
bomb. At the same time, the FIR is to be registered
just to initiate the investigation and it is not
the be all and end all of the case, specially in a
case of present nature.

399. Not even this, it is also come in evidence
that the injured witnesses, who were near to the
Car of the CM including drivers of the other car,
Baldev Singh Mann, MLA and Dhanwant Singh etc were
disoriented because of the injuries and the
medicines given to them and were not in position to
disclose anything.

400. As such the authority relied upon by the
learned defence counsels titled Ganesh Bhawan Patel
Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979, Supreme Court,
page 135 is of no help to the defence because in
that case there were the eye witnesses of the
murder, whose statement were not recorded
immediately and on those facts their testimony were
found to be doubtful. However, at the same time,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the well
settled principle of law that a delay of few hours,
simplicitor, in recording the statement of the eye
witnesses, may not, by itself, amount to a serious
infirmity in the prosecution case. But it may
assumes such a character if there are concomitant
circumstances to suggest that the investigator was
deliberately marking time with a view to decide

413

about the shape to be given to the case and the eye
witnesses to be introduced.

401. However, in the present case, it is
undisputed case of the prosecution that there was
no eye witness of the occurrence in true sense and
as such delay in examination of those persons is
immaterial. At the same time, immediately after the
blast, the first duty of the Police and the persons
reached at the spot was to save the life of injured
persons and not to confront them as to how the
occurrence took place.

402. As far as the plea of learned defence
counsel regarding the alleged delay in the
registration of FIR is concerned, again in this
case, as stated earlier the first preference of the
Police and the Officers reached at the spot
including the injured persons but who were in their
senses, was to save as many lives as possible by
providing immediate medical help to the injured. At
the same time, the occurrence in question took
place at 5.15 p.m and the FIR was recorded at 7.30
PM on the statement of Constable Pala Ram. At the
same time, the nature of the offence itself shows
that the registration of the FIR was required only
to initiate the investigations as it was not a case
based on the eye witness account but was a case of
sudden bomb blast caused witjout giving any warning
and time witness that.

414

403. Similarly, the plea of learned defence
counsels regarding the delay of registration of FIR
is also inconsequential because of the fact that
after transfer of the investigations to the CBI, it
has only re-registered the case to formally set its
machinery in motion for the investigations and it
was not barred from investigating the case till the
re-registration of the FIR as it was not a
condition precedent to start the investigations.
Above all, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused
to the accused persons because of this, as none of
the accused persons have been named in the FIR. As
such, this plea of learned defence counsels proved
to be a plea for the sake of arguments only.

404. For the same reasons, no benefit can be
given to the defence for the faults committed by
the Investigating Officers for not recording the
statement of those witnesses and the authority
relied upon by learned defence title Subhash Vs.
U.T, 1976 Criminal Law Journal, page 1521, and Sevy
and others Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 1981, Criminal
Law Journal, page 736 are of no help to the
defence .

405. On the other hand, the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Laxmi and others Vs. State of U.P., 2002 (4),
RCR (Criminal) , Page 82, reiterated the well
settled principle of law that every faulty

415

investigations or padding in evidence can not by
itself lead to total demolition of the prosecution
case, if it can otherwise stand, ignoring these
fallacies. Similarly in Mundrika Mahato Vs. State
of Bihar, 2002 (2) RCR, Criminal, page 627, again
the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated this fact and
held that it also cannot be ignored that in large
number of criminal cases, the investigations are
neither perfect nor scientific but no benefit of
this fact can be given to the defence, if the facts
are otherwise proved and it by itself cannot lead
to a conclusion that the accused are innocent. But
the only reguirement is of extra caution by courts
while evaluating the evidence keeping in view the
facts and circumstances of the case and the nature
of the offence involved. Similar principle was
reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the latest
authority titled Acharaparambath Pradipan Vs. State
of Kerala, 2007 (1) RCR, page 929. Accordingly in
the present case as mentioned above the facts and
circumstances in which this blast took place and
involving number of deaths and number of injured
persons and the fact that the investigations were
initially initiated by Chandigarh Police and then
taken over by the CBI, there is every possibility
that there must have been some infirmities and
deficiencies on the part of the Investigating
Officers may be due to over sight or otherwise but
these have no effect on the over all conclusion of
the Investigating Agencies.

416

406. Similarly, no doubt there are some
discrepancies in the testimony of the Police
witnesses and the private witnesses relating to the
factual position but it is not sufficient to
disprove the case of the prosecution specially when
the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence
on all aspects of the case including the nature of
the blast, factum of conspiracy and the link of the
accused persons with the same. In this regard, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Singh Vs. State, AIR
1978, Supreme Court, page 1091, while interpreting
the aspect of proof of guilt beyond reasonable
doubts and the standard of proof required held that
"Credibility of testimony oral and circumstantial
depends considerably or on a judicial evaluation of
totality, not isolated scrutiny while it is
necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should
be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not
necessary that it should be perfect proof beyond
reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and
guilty man can not get away with it because the
truth suffers some infirmity when projected through
human process. The judicial quest for perfect proof
often accounts for police presentation of fool
proof concoction. We must be realistic."

407. At the same time, the objection raised by
learned defence counsel as to link evidence to
prove the intactness of the incriminating articles

417

recovered from the spot till it reaches to various
laboratories, is of no consequences, keeping in
view the nature of those articles and the fact that
all these articles were taken into possession in
the presence of the experts and as per their
directions and as such there is no question of any
interference with their contents. At the same time,
all the incriminating articles recovered from the
spot were necessary only for the purpose of
assessing the nature of the blast and the explosive
device used and it has no direct link with the
accused persons and at the same time the factum of
blast is duly proved and not disputed. As far as
the plea of learned defence counsel regarding
recovery two diaries, one from near the dead body
of Yash Pal and other from near the dead body of
Swarn Singh, is concerned, since nothing
incriminatory was found in these diaries, those
were not relevant and were not made part of the
record .

408. In addition to this, all the Investigating

Officers of the case have categorically deposed
that all the incriminating articles recovered from
the spot or from the possession of the accused
persons were sealed and kept in the same condition
till it reaches the expert. Not even this, almost
all the articles recovered from the spot, were in
the presence of experts and as per their directions
and as such there is nothing to doubt about

418

intactness of those articles specially when the
nature of those articles itself is sufficient to
say that there can not be any possibility of any
interference with the same. At the same time during
evidence all these incriminating articles have been
produced in the court and identified by the
material witnesses, concerned with the same and
exhibited in the court as material articles Ex.P-
158 to Ex.P-219, which further shows that this plea
is without any substance and have any effect on the
case of prosecution. Even the photographs of all
the accused persons identified by the various
witnesses during investigation has been produced on
record as mentioned in para 55of the judgement.

409. Even PW-248 has deposed that all the

articles, which were recovered from the spot on
2.9.1995 and 3.9.1995 as well as the RDX recovered
from the house of accused Nasib Singh was taken by
him from the CBI malkhana Chandigarh and was
carried to Delhi and was deposited with the CFSL
authorities. As far as the question of recovery of
incriminating articles from the accused persons
including the recovery of the RDX from the
possession of accused Nasib Singh and its link with
the case is concerned that will be considered when
the case of accused persons will be discussed
individually .

409.1. To further clarify this point,
it comes out that, as is clear from the

419

testimony of PW-240, Inspector Nanha Ram,
first of all, he took into possession
certain incriminating articles from the
spot as mentioned in Ex.PW-179/6, in the
presence of Balinder Kaur, an expert of
CFSL, Chandigarh and all those articles
were sealed in 27 parcels as per the
details mentioned in the recovery memo in
the presence of PW-179, SI Ved Parkash
and sealed with the seal of 'NR' and were
sent to CFSL, Chandigarh on 1.9.1995
itself through SI Ved Parkash and after
examining those articles along with the
specimen seal impression, Ms. Balinder
Kaur conducted the test and prepared her
report Ex.PW-248/2 dated 12.9.1995 vide
which she detected RDX and PETN, which
are highly explosive substances, thus
this report shows that all the
incriminating articles recovered from the
spot on 1.9.1995 reached the CFSL on the
same day and therefore there is no
question of missing of any link evidence
in this regard.

409.2. Then, it further comes out that
when the investigations were taken over
by the CBI and the scene of crime was
examined by Sh.SN Saxena, DSP, CBI with
the help of PW-228, P.K.Dhawan, Inspector

420

Crime Branch, Chandigarh and PW-191,
Neeraj Sharma, in the presence of the
experts of CFSL Delhi, who also examined
and inspected all the vehicles damaged in
the blast as per the details mentioned in
the observation-cum-seizure memo, Ex . PW-
228/1 and during the inspection of the
scene of crime, some more incriminating
articles including blood samples
collected from the spot from where the
dead bodies were retrieved; sweepings
from the floor of the front side and the
right rear side of the car and its dickey
of car, which was target of blast;
clothes and articles of the deceased
persons lying at the spot; and other
articles as detailed in memo Ex.PW228/l
and, all those samples were sealed in 23
parcels, sealed with the seal of 'AK' and
after preparation of a sample seal, all
those parcels were kept by the 1.0. and
then on the next day, again some more
incriminating articles were collected
from the scene of crime by A.K.Ohri in
the presence of PW-228, PK Dhawan and PW-
191, SI Neeraj Sharma, as per the seizure
memo Ex.PW-191/A and Ex.PW-191/B and five
more parcels of all these articles were
prepared and sealed and thereafter all
these parcels were handed over to Satish

421

Kumar, Assistant Malkhana, CBI , Chandigarh
on 3.9.1995, as is clear from the receipt
given by said Satish Kumar on these
recovery memos.

409.3. In addition to this, it is also

proved that PW-248 after completing the
proceedings at Chandigarh on 20.9.1995
left for Delhi along with all the above
articles which were temporarily kept in
the malkhana of the CBI, Chandigarh as
admitted by DW9, Prahlad Singh, and then
deposited these articles in the CFSL,
Delhi on 21.9.1995. As such, there is due
explanation on the file that all these
articles reached CFSL in intact condition
and there is nothing on the file to doubt
the veracity of the prosecution in this
regard. At the same time, in Smt.Meena
Gopalkrishna Vs . State of Maharashtra
1993 Crl.L.J. 3634, the Hon'ble Bombay
High Court held that where it is proved
that the incriminating articles were
sealed at the spot and reached the
Chemical Examiner in the same state and
the Chemical Examiner also found the
seals to be intact and similar to the
samples seal impression, there is no
question of disputing the intactness of
the case property even if the police

422

officials with whom it remained and who
took the same to the Chemical Analyst has
not been examined, as there is no
possibility of tampering with the same in
transit. At the same time, PW-248 has
categorically stated that he himself took
all the case properties to the
Laboratories and till the time, it
remained in his possession, neither he
inteferred with its contents nor he had
allowed anybody to do so.

410. Even PW-247, R.S.Punia, one of the
Investigators of the case has deposed that on
3.9.1995, when he inspected the scene of
occurrence, he also did not notice any crater
beneath the body of the car, which further shows
that there is nothing on the file to disbelieve the
stand taken by accused Balwant Singh that it was a
single bomb blast caused by Dilawar Singh as a
suicide bomber.

411. Above all, this court can also assess the
nature of blast from the scene of crime as shown in
the photographs and site plan prepared by PW-240,
Nanha Ram, Ex.PW240/2. And a perusal of the above
mentioned records and the reports of experts and
the facts and circumstances under which this blast
took place coupled with after effects, it comes out
that it was a single blast caused by an improvised

423

explosive device, being strapped on the waist of a
human being, who detonates the same in close
proximity to the target, i.e the car of the Chief
Minister because no crater was found on the
ground, which indicates that the device has been
initiated above the ground level .

412. In addition to above discussed evidence,
it is also proved on the file that Jagdish Singh,
driver of the Car No. PB-08-3469, which was the
target of the assassin; Kultar Singh NSG Guard; ASI
Jagdish Singh another PSO; Swaran Singh PA and Yash
Pal Bali other PA, to the chief Minister and
Dr. Anil Duggal, who all were present near the car
of Chief Minister, died immediately after the bomb
blast, either at the spot or in the Hospital.

413. Apart from this, the other dead persons
were also in the vicinity of the place of blast.
This fact itself shows that there was only one
blast, as all those, who died were those, who were
either near the deceased CM or nearby his car as
per the details mentioned in the site plan, Ex.PW-
240/2, showing the scene of crime as it exists at
the spot, immediately after the blast. Not even
this, it is further proved that only car of CM,
which was target of blast, was damaged extensively,
as is clear from the photographs, Ex.PW-119/1 to
Ex. PW-119/71 . And lastly even the major damage to
the building was also near that place only. This

424

aspects further fortified the above conclusions
that it was case of single blast caused by a human
bomb .

414. This fact is further fortified from the
fact that the maximum damage has been occurred to
the left rear side of the car of the CM and the CM
was going to sit in the car, from that side, and
all the persons died immediately after the blast
were those, who were present near that car, which
further shows that the seat of the explosion is
above the ground level near the left rear side of
the car and this blast is possible only when caused
by a suicide bomber, through an IED wrapped around
the torso of the body, specially when it is further
proved that only torso of the body of human bomb
was missing and two legs and skull were intact and
were recovered from the spot.

415. At the same time, the damage caused to
the building and the surroundings further shows
that the blast took place out side the car and not
inside the car. The two bomb theory and the use of
incendiary bombs as propagated by the learned
defence counsels, is not supported by any evidence,
circumstantial or otherwise, specially when it is
clear that any sort of bomb explosion will result
into fire and damage which is main effect of a
incendiary blast. Similarly, the plea of learned
defence counsel that one of the bomb blast took

425

place inside the car, is also baseless as it can
not be believed that, had there been a crater at
the place of blast, it would have not been noticed
by so many Investigating Officers, who inspected
the spot and the expert witnesses, including PW-
165, who has categorically stated that he had not
found any crater at the spot or under the car and
he had also justified his opinion in this regard
with scientific reason, which appeals to the mind
of this court also.

416. As far as the reliance of learned defence
counsel on a news item published in this regard in
The Tribune dated 8.9.1995, copy of which is
Ex.DWl/4, is concerned, this is inadmissible in
evidence as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Samant N. Balakrishna etc., Vs.
George Fernandez and others etc. reported in AIR
1969 Supreme Court, page 1201, and as reiterated
buy the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmi Shetty Vs.
State of Tamilnadu, AIR, 1998, Supreme Court, page
1274, where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that

"Judicial notice can not be taken of the
facts stated in a news item being in the
nature of hearsay secondary evidence,
unless proved by evidence aliunde. A
report in a newspaper is only hearsay
evidence. A newspaper is not one of the
documents referred to in Section 78(2) of
the Evidence Act by which an allegation
of fact can be proved. The presumption of
genuineness attached under Section 81 of

426

th8e Evidence Act to a newspaper report
can not be treated as proved of the facts
reported therein. A statement of fact
contained in a newspaper is merely
hearsay and therefore inadmissible in
evidence in the absence of the maker of
the statement appearing in court and
deposing to have perceived the fact
reported . "

417. Accordingly, in the present case neither
DW-1 nor DW-3, Prabhjot Paul Singh, who was the
Principal Correspondent of 'The Tribune' those days
proved the contents of the news item Ex.DWl/4. As
such, anything published in the news paper
regarding the bomb blast can not consider for any
purpose whatsoever either far or against the
defence .

418. Thus in view of the above discussed legal
and factual evidence, the irresistible conclusion
is that it was a case of single bomb blast caused
by a improvised high explosives device, initiated
by an assassin, who bore the bomb in a belt around
his waist and initiated the same with the power
source of dry cells/battery, with the help of an
on-off switch, in the close proximity to the car of
the CM and thus it was a case of human bomb blast
and there is no scope of doubt in the mind of this
court to come to this conclusion.

QUESTION (l.b)

427

If question no. (a) is proved in
affirmative as per the version of the
prosecution, whether deceased Dilawar
Singh acted as a human bomb and blew off
himself near the carcade of Chief Minister
leading to this occurrence?

419. Undisputedly , as per finding question (1 . a)
it is proved on the file that on 31.8.1995, the
deceased Beant Singh and 15 other persons died in a
blast in the Civil Secretariat of Punjab caused by
a suicide bomber, whose two legs and a skull was
found at the site of blast. Now the question comes
whether deceased accused Dilawar Singh acted as a
human bomb and caused this blast and those two legs
and skull were of him.

420. In this regard, it is further proved on
the file that after the bomb blast, PW-240,
reached at the spot and found that there is no eye
witness to give the circumstances leading to the
blast and when he went to the P.G.I, he recorded
the statement of PW-30, C.Pala Ram, Ex.PW30/3 and
PW Pala Ram has also given the same account of
blast as was given by PW-218 and thereafter a
formal FIR was registered.

421. The case of prosecution is that two
severed legs and the skull recovered from the spot
were taken to General Hospital, Sector 16
Chandigarh, after conducting the proceedings u/s
174 of the Cr.P.C. Although a lot has been argued

428

by learned defence counsels, disputing the recovery
of two legs and skull from the spot on 31.8.1995
itself and its identity alleging that there is no
evidence on the file that these limbs were
recovered on 31.8.1995 from the spot and later on
deposited in the P.G.I for postmortem examination.

422. However, this plea is without any basis
because there is sufficient evidence on the file,
which proves that immediately after the blast,
these two legs and the skull were recovered from
the spot by PW-240, Nanha Ram but admittedly he
failed to take proper measures to keep the same in
proper custody.

423. First of all, as stated earlier, PW-240
deposed that when the information was sent to the
Police, he reached at the spot and cordoned the
area of the blast and on inspection of the spot, he
found about 10 dead bodies lying at the spot and on
further inspection he also found two severed legs,
one near the Car of the CM and the other at the
distance of 6 to 7 feet towards VIP gate and a
skull near the Car without torso.

424. In addition to this, as stated earlier,
PW-119, Dr.Gopal Ji Mishra, Director Forensic
Science Laboratory Punjab, who have visited the
scene of crime immediately after the blast, also
proved that when he took the photographs, the two

429

legs and skull, were lying near the blasted Car of
the CM and he has also given the description of the
spots where the same were lying. As such, this fact
also proves the presence and recovery of two legs
and the skull immediately after the blast. Even PW-
165 has deposed that he had also seen and examined
two legs and the skull recovered from the spot and
in the report, Ex.PW-165/1, he has referred that on
the basis of the scientific examination of the two
legs and the skull and the complete destruction of
the corresponding torso, coupled with other facts
and circumstances, suggests that the exploded IED
was on the body of the person, who had tied the
explosive belt around his waist. As far as the plea
of the learned defence counsel that PW-165 has not
prepared any separate inspection memo of these
limbs is concerned, it has no force because PW-165
has clarified that he had inspected and examined
these limbs in the mortuary of General Hospital,
Sector 16, Chandigarh in the presence of all other
experts and officials of the CBI and he had also
prepared a sketch of the limbs after measurement
and also made a report in this regard and then
prepared a final report of the entire inspection
Ex. PW-165/A.

425. Above all, Ex.PW6/42, is the inquest

proceedings of these limbs prepared by PW-240, on
31.8.1995 itself at the spot, and in this report
also, he has categorically mentioned that these

430

limbs were recovered from near the blasted car of
CM as shown in the site plan prepared in the
proceedings. Although, the learned defence counsel
alleged that PW-176, SI Gamdoor Singh was also
present during the inguest proceedings but has not
stated about the two legs and the skull. But there
is no force in this plea as this witness has
categorically stated that he was not present when
the inquest proceedings were prepared by PW-240 but
he was assigned the duty of a postmortem
examination of the dead bodies and two legs and the
skull .

426. At the same time, the moot question is

whether any of the remaining dead bodies recovered
from the spot were having any of the limbs, similar
to the limbs recovered from the spot, missing.
However after scanning the entire medical evidence
of prosecution including the statements of Doctors,
who have conducted the postmortem examination and
the statement of PW-240, who was the first person
to visit at the spot, it comes out that the answer
to this question is in negative because there is no
evidence on the file to show that apart from these
two unidentified legs and head any other
unidentified limb was recovered from the spot or
any of the dead bodies recovered from the spot were
having any of the limbs missing, similar to the
unidentified limbs recovered from the spot.

431

427. As far as the plea of learned defence
counsel that one headless body of deceased Rajinder
Parsad was recovered from the spot which raises
doubt about the authenticity of the skull alleged
to be of assassin human bomb, is concerned, there
is no force in this plea because PW-4,
Dr . J . K . Kalra, who has conducted the post mortem
examination of deceased Rajinder Parsad, has
categorically deposed that when he examined the
dead body of deceased Rajinder Parsad, it was
intact and not headless technically.

428. On the contrary, upper part of the head of
the front portion was missing but the skull was
attached with the neck and as such the skull
recovered from the spot which was having the face
intact can not be linked with the Rajinder Parsad
and it was neither the case of the prosecution nor
the defence. This fact is further clear from the
skiagrams of the x-ray films Ex.PW4/14 to Ex.PW4/20
coupled with the report of Dr. P. D.Jain, Ex.PW4/21
and the nature of the external injuries found on
the dead body specially injury no.l, which was
"mutilated lacerated wound around the neck below
the level of chin in front of occipital bone at the
back, upper part of the head was missing except a
small piece of scalp attached to it", which means
the injuries were found on the head of Rajinder
Parsad and only part of th8e skull were missing and
from this, it can not be said that the head was

432

totally chopped off and body was headless. At the
same time, PW-4, was not cross examined by the
learned defence counsels on this point, which
further shows that the body of Rajinder Parsad was
not headless in technical sense.

429. Needless to say, once it is proved that
all the remaining dead bodies were either complete
or were duly identified, there is nothing on the
file to doubt the recovery of these limbs i.e two
legs and one complete skull, as shown in the
photographs Ex.PW119/71 to Ex.PW119/94, from the
place of occurrence. On the contrary, it is proved
that only torso of these two legs and the head was
missing and all the remaining dead bodies were
complete and duly identified.

430. Simply because of the fact that there was
some confusion to PW-240 as to whether he deposited
the limbs in the General Hospital, Sector 16 or in
the P.G.I, it can not be said that the factum of
the recovery itself is doubtful specially when the
inquest report of these limbs was prepared on
31.8.1995 itself. No doubt, as submitted by learned
defence counsel, there is some confusion as to
where these two legs and the skull, was deposited
by PW-240 after its recovery on 31.8.1995. Whereas
it is admitted that it reaches P.G.I only on
4.9.1995 and kept in the dissection hall of the
anatomy department whereas the police witnesses

433

alleged that it was kept in the Mortuary of the
P.G.I but this aspect has no bearing on the factual
aspect as to the recovery of these limbs from the
spot .

431. At the same time, the confusion as to the
deposit of these limbs is also clear from the
testimony of PW-240 and it is duly explained on the
file as how these limbs reached P.G.I. In this
regard, a perusal of the inquest proceedings
Ex.PW6/42, shows that after the recovery of these
limbs from the spot, PW-240, moved an application
with the Duty Doctor of G.H Sector 16 Chandigarh
for the postmortem examination of those limbs,
along with the request for the postmortem of the
dead bodies.

432. It has been categorically stated by PW-16,
Dr.Sandeep Singh Sawhney of Department of Forensic
Medicine, Medical College, Chandigarh that on
2.9.1995, after conducting the postmortem
examination of the dead bodies from 1.9.1995 till
the next date, he had examined the two severed legs
and the part of the skull in the Mortuary of Sector
16 Hospital. This statement was made by this
witness on 4.9.1996 and was deferred for 6.9.1996
and when a question was put to this witness as to
what he had done with the two severed legs and
skull, he categorically explained that Inspector
Nanha Ram asked him whether it is possible that

434

these two legs and skull remain and the remaining
portion of the body is blown off. But before the
witness could answer the question, an objection was
raised by learned defence counsel, as to its
admissibility and the further statement of the
witness was deferred and when on the next date he
was recalled for further statement that question
was not put to the witness.

433. But the proceedings of the inquest of
these limbs provides an answer to this question as
a report has been made on the application that the
facilities for the postmortem examination of these
limbs is not available in the General Hospital,
Sector 16, Chandigarh. As such, the same be taken
to P.G.I and PW-16 has explained that he asked
Inspector, Nanha Ram to put the two legs and the
skull in the Mortuary Chamber and thereafter on
3.9.1995, when the investigations were taken over
by the CBI and these limbs were inspected by the
CBI team, it was decided that these limbs should be
kept in the formalin to save it from decomposition.

434. At the same time, this fact is further
proved on the file from the testimony of PW-20,
Dr . J . L . Chaudhary, who deposed that on 31.8.1995, he
constituted various teams to conduct the postmortem
examination of the dead bodies received in the
Hospital and marked the dead bodies to the various
team. He and PW-16 Dr.Sawhney have categorically

435

deposed that no
maintained to enter
but only postmortem

mortuary register was being
the receipt of the dead bodies
register is being maintained.

435. He further deposed that on 3.9.1995 he had
the occasion to see two severed legs and a skull
in the mortuary. He further deposed that on
3.9.1995 when CBI team also asked about the nature
of limbs, Dr. Sawney (PW-16) explained that on
2.9.1995, Inspector Nanha Ram had asked him whether
it is possible that the entire body of person
should be blasted off and that only skull and lower
limb would remain and he had stated that it is
possible and Dr. Sawney also explained that he had
also examined the two legs and skull to say so.
During the cross examination of PW-20, the learned
defence counsel submitted that he be permitted to
examine the file from which PW-20 has refreshed his
memory about the role played by Dr.Sahini, in
examining the limbs but this was objected by the
defence counsel and case was adjourned to
14.10.1996 to decide this point but on 14.10.1996
this point was not agitated as learned defence
counsel continued the cross examination without
going through the file but that file was made part
of the record.

436. Accordingly, a perusal of the file shows
that the facts disclosed by PW-20, were duly
available in the file in black & white and this

436

fact clinches the entire issue and further proves
that these limbs were recovered from the spot on
31.8.1995 itself and were taken to General
Hospital, Sector 16 Chandigarh for postmortem
examination and on 2.9.1995, these were examined by
PW-16, Dr.Sahini after completion postmortem
examination of the identified dead bodies, and on
3.9.1995 these were examined by PW-20,
Dr . J . L . Chaudhary and the CBI team and then the same
were taken to PGI . As such there is sufficient
explanation on the file as to how these limbs were
taken to the P.G.I.

437. Simply because of the fact that the

recovery of these limbs have not been reflected in
he DDR recorded by PW-240 while reaching Police
Station or it is not mentioned in the inquest
report of the dead body of Beant Singh, is not
sufficient to doubt the recovery these limbs from
the spot. In addition to this, it has been
categorically stated by PW-6 that after conducting
the postmortem examination on the dead body of
deceased Beant Singh, he found that the death was
because of the extensive deep burns and mutilating
injuries suffered by the deceased because of bomb
blast, which must have caused by a explosive
device. Since there is no dispute regarding the
identification of dead bodies of both the
deceased, Beant Singh and Dr. Anil Duggal, there is
no justification to discuss the statement of PW-6

437

as to how he confirmed the identity of the dead
body to be of Beant Singh.

438. Similarly after conducting the postmortem
on the dead bodies of Dr. Anil Kumar Duggal,he
again reiterated that he died because of the
injuries suffered in bomb blast. He also deposed
about the handing over of the incriminating
articles recovered from the dead body of both the
deceased persons, which were later on examined by
the CFSL authorities and confirmed to be having the
traces of RDX.

439. Not even this, PW-6 further deposed that
on 4.9.1995 he received two legs and a head being
kept in a formalin for postmortem examination and
on 5.9.1995 as per the orders of Director P.G.I.,
Ex.PW6/40-A, he conducted the postmortem
examination of these limbs and as per his report,
Ex.PW6/43, after examining two legs with feet,
right shoe black in colour, which fitted the right
foot of the severed leg and a mutilated head and
neck, he concluded that both these legs belongs to
the same person and they have been severed just
above the knees by a blast which had created big
lacerated wound at the upper ends of both the legs
because of an explosive device. Although, he also
opined that from these limbs, it comes out that
these limbs are of young male but to establish the
identity and the fact whether the legs and heads

438

belongs to a same person, a DNA test should be
done .

440. He also proved that Ex.PW6/44 and
Ex.PW6/45 are the impression of the right and left
foot of these two legs and Ex.PW6/46 to Ex.PW6/49
are the four coloured photographs of the legs and
Ex.PW6/50 to Ex.PW6/52 are the three photographs of
the head, which were taken by him through his
departmental photographer in his presence and which
he had handed over to the CBI along with his report
along with all other documents relating to this. He
has also identified Ex.P50, as the same shoe which
was brought to him along with severed legs and the
skull and which was fitted to the right foot of the
severed leg and which he wrapped in a wrapper,
Ex.P51, along with the epidermal cast of both the
foots .

441. The case of the prosecution is that as per
recommendation of Dr.Inderjit Diwan, PW-245,
Dr.Lalji Singh Director Centre for Cellular and
Molecular Biology , Hyderabad, who is a DNA expert,
was called as this laboratory was the first
laboratory in India, which have the facility of
comparison of DNA and accordingly on 5.9.1995
Dr.Lalji reached Chandigarh and visited P.G.I and
examined the two legs and the head and thereafter
took the samples of blood of Harnek Singh, father
of Dilawar Singh and Chamkaur Singh brother of

439

Dilawar Singh because by that time the C.B.I
received a information that the two legs and the
skull are of deceased Dilawar Singh, who acted as a
suicide bomber and this fact was also confirmed by
Chamkaur Singh, PW-99.

442. Accordingly, PW-245 himself obtained the
blood samples of Harnek Singh and Chamkaur Singh as
per the identification cards, Ex.PW245/4 and
Ex.PW245/3. He also took into possession some
muscle pieces from both the legs and the head
allegedly of Dilawar Singh and also took the
photographs and affixed the same on the
identification form, Ex.PW245/5. He further
submitted that on 6.9.1995 he again took the blood
of Surjit Kaur, mother of Dilawar Singh, as per the
identification form, Ex.PW245/6, in the presence of
Doctors as well as in the presence of officials,
who also signed those forms.

443. As far as the plea of learned defence
counsel regarding doubt as to the time when the
samples of blood of Harnek Singh etc and the
authenticity of the report of PW-245, is concerned,
this plea has been put forward on the assumption
that PW-246, A.K.Chanda, in whose presence, the
blood samples were taken by the Doctors of the
P.G.I, alleged that the samples were taken at about
4.30 PM as mentioned in the memo, Ex.PW99/l, in the
presence of PW-245, Dr.Lalji Singh but Dr.Lalji

440

Singh admitted that he reached at P.G.I only about
6.30 PM. However, no importance to this fact can be
given because when Dr.Lalji was cross examined on
this point, he stated that he can not pin point the
exact time, when he reached at Chandigarh and at
P.G.I and it may be 4.00 PM or 4.30 PM, 5.00 or
6.00 PM .

444. At the same time, PW-99, Chamkaur Singh,
when stepped into the witness categorically
admitted that although he identified the two legs
and the skull as the remnants of the body of his
brother, Dilawar Singh but since his father was
having some doubt, their blood samples were taken
by the Doctors for comparison and his signatures
were also obtained on the identification form,
Ex.PW45/3 as well as of his parents.

445. Much has been argued by learned defence
counsel on the point that these identifications
form have been left blank and reguisite information
in all the columns has not been filled up, which
shows that these were created later on.
However, this plea is also based on needless
apprehension and without any basis because PW-6,
Dr.Inderjit Diwan, PW-99, Chamkaur Singh, PW-245,
Dr.Lalji Tondon have categorically stated that
their blood samples were taken by the Doctors as
per the memo Ex.PW99/l, which is signed by PW-99
and his father Harnek Singh and they have also

441

signed the identification forms.

446. No doubt, as stated by PW-6 some samples
of tissues were also taken by PW-6 but he has
categorically stated that all those samples were
taken by him on the direction of PW-245 and all
those samples were sealed in a parcel and was
handed over to PW-245 as per the receipt, Ex.PW6/88
and PW-245, has also admitted this fact and also
brought the main cartoon, Ex . PW245/Article-l , in
which all the samples were taken to Laboratory.
Thus there is nothing on the file to disbelieve the
taking of blood samples of Chamkaur Singh and his
parents and tissues from the two legs and the
skull .

447. Now the question comes whether the report
of PW-245, exhibited as PW245/7 is a admissible
piece of evidence or not. After challenging the
procedure for taking the samples, the learned
defence counsel submitted that the report of PW-245
is not conclusive piece of evidence as first of all
the DNA test is not a conclusive evidence as to the
identity of a person and at the same time, the
report Ex.PW245/7 itself shows that some of the
tissues as mentioned in the report as Ex.G to Ex.T
were found to be not fit for DNA finger prints
because those were decomposed and if it was so, the
other samples exhibited as Ex.D to Ex.F of the same
disputed two legs and the skull, can not be held to

442

be fit for comparison
in the same formalin
place in entire parts.

as the entire body was
and the decomposition

kept
took

448. He further submitted that the main test
recommended for DNA matching, known as RFLP test,
has not been conducted by PW-245 and in addition to
that all the five recognized method for DNA testing
has not been carried out by PW-245, which makes the
report of PW-245 highly doubtful as the PCR method
of DNA matching is not a full proof test and is
only a technique used for DNA amplification as
admitted by PW-245, which further shows that the
report of PW-245 is waste piece of evidence and can
not be considered for any purpose whatsoever.

449. At the same time, no permission of the
court or the consent of the concerned persons i.e
PW-99 and his parents was obtained before taking
the blood samples, which further shows that the
entire process leading to the report, Ex.PW245/7,
is doubtful. Not even this, one more lacuna which
makes the report is highly doubtful, is that in the
report, Ex.PW245/7 itself, it is mentioned that the
blood samples and the tissues of the deceased were
received of the deceased in laboratory on 7.9.1995
whereas PW-245 alleged that these were taken to
Laboratory on 8.9.1995 and there is no evidence as
to with whom the samples remains from 5.9.1995 to
8.9.1995 and in what condition.

443

450. However, after going through the case law
relied upon by learned defence counsel on this
aspect, it comes out that none of the grounds put
forward by the learned defence counsel to challenge
the report of PW-245 is of any merit and has been
put forward just to confuse the matter. Needless to
say in Gautam Kundu's case (Supra) there was a
civil litigations leading a dispute of paternity of
a child and when that dispute was referred for
determination on the basis of blood grouping test,
which is a circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that blood grouping test is a
useful test to determine the guestion of disputed
paternity and the courts can rely upon such reports
as a circumstantial evidence. However, no person
can be compelled to give samples of blood for
analysis against her will and no adverse inference
can be drawn against her for this refusal.

451. However, how this authority is applicable
to the facts in hand is a fact which remains
unexplained on the file and thus of no help to the
defence. Similarly in Hira Singh Case's (Supra),

there was a dispute of paternity and to decide that
dispute the DNA test was prayed for but that was
declined and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the
consent of the person concerned is necessary before
DNA test is conducted and when mother refused to
give consent on behalf of minor child, the court

444

can not direct such tests.

452. However, in the present case PW-99
has categorically deposed that he and his parents
had given the blood samples without any objection
and he was not even cross examined on this aspect
to show that their blood samples were taken
forcibly and against their wishes. As such this
plea of learned defence counsel is without any
basis .

453. As far as the procedure for taking the
blood samples and the authenticity of
identification forms Ex.PW245/3 to Ex.PW245/6, is
concerned, again there is nothing on the file to
say that these forms are incomplete or fabricated.
On the contrary, on these forms a certificate is
given that blood samples of Chamkaur Singh and his
parents and tissues and muscle from two legs and
skull were taken along with the photographs in the
presence of PW-245 and the doctors of the P.G.I and
Chamkaur Singh and his father Harnek Singh also
signed these forms. It is also mentioned that what
is the purpose of test and whose sample is taken
and for what purpose. No doubt the particulars of
the case FIR etc has not been mentioned in these
forms along with the person present but this is not
sufficient to dispute the authenticity of these
forms specially when from these forms it is proved
that as stated by the witnesses blood samples of

445

PW-99 and his father along with the muscle and
tissues of two legs and the skull were taken on
5.9.1995 and blood samples of mother of PW-99 was
taken on 6.9.1995 and all the samples of the
muscles, tissues and blood samples were sealed by
PW-6 by his own seal and were handed over to PW-
245, who himself took them to the Laboratory and
those samples remain in his custody as stated by
him and as such there is no question of missing of
any link evidence in this regard.

454. Now the question comes what is the

authenticity of the report of PW-245 and what is
the evidentiary value of DNA test in the courts to
decide a dispute of identity. In this regard, the
learned defence counsel has relied upon Sakthivel ' s
Case Supra where the Hon'ble Madras High Court,
after considering the provision of Section 45 of
the Evidence Act held that the DNA test report is
only a piece of evidence to corroborate the oral
evidence and thus it is only a supporting evidence
of an expert. Thus, no doubt, DNA profiling is not
a full proof and conclusive evidence in the process
of investigation but it certainly corroborates the
other evidence and in this case also prosecution
has opted for DNA test to establish the identity of
two legs and a skull, just to be more sure about
the facts stated by PW-99, Chamkaur Singh and his
parents, who have otherwise identified that these
two legs and skull belongs to deceased Dilawar

446

Singh and the DNA report was taken only to remove
any doubts .

455. As far as the procedure to conduct the DNA

profile and its evidentially value, is concerned,
as relied upon by learned defence counsel in
reference Guide on Forensic DNA evidence by

Judith. A. Mekenna and two other authors, a procedure
on technical issue that arise in considering the
admissibility of and weight to be accorded to DNA
reports, was clarified and as per these authors,
the best established form of Forensic DNA
identification is RFLP analysis. The authors
further held that the DNA analysis is based on well
established principles of the wide genetic
variability among humans and the presumed
unigueness of an individuals genetic make-up and in
this technigue the human chromosomes are isolated.
The authors further explained that most DNA
carrying cells in a human contain the same
information encoded in the approximately 3.3
billion base pairs per set of chromosomes in each
cell. More than 99% of the base pairs in human
cells are the same for all individuals which
accounts for the many common traits that make
human an identifiable species. The remaining base
pairs (about 3 million) are particular to an
individual (identical twins excepted) , which
accounts for most of the wide variation that makes
each person unigue.

447

456. Similarly, in DNA testing; an introduction

for non scientist; an illustrated explanation by
DONALD E.RILEY, Ph.D. University of Washington,
(Copyright 1998) , the learned author explained the
DNA in easy terms in the following words :-

"DNA is material that governs
inheritance of eye color, hair
color, stature, bone density and
many other human and animal traits.
DNA is a long narrow string-like
object. A one foot long string or
strand of DNA is normally packed
into a space roughly egual to a
cube 1/millionth of an inch on a
side. This is possible only because
DNA is a very thin string.

Our body's cells each contain a
complete sample of our DNA. One
cell is roughly equal in size to
the cube described in the previous
paragraph. There are muscle cells,
brain cells, liver cells, blood
cells, sperm cells and others.
Basically, every part of the body
is made up of these tiny cells and
each contains a sample or
complement of DNA identical to that

448

of every other cell within a given
person. There are a few exceptions.
For example, our red blood cells
lack DNA. Blood itself can be typed
because of the DNA contained in our
white blood cells.

Not only does the human body rely
on DNA but so do most living things
including plants, animals and
bacteria .

A strand of DNA is made up of tiny
building blocks. There are only
four, different basic building
blocks. Scientists usually refer to
these using four letters for the
four different building blocks. The
letters are: A.T.G. And C. These
four letters are short nicknames
for more complicated chemical
names, but actually the letters
(A.T.G and C) are used much more
commonly than the chemical names so
the latter will not be mentioned
here. Another way of referring to
the building blocks or letters is
to call them bases.

457. Keeping in view the above discussed

449

technical aspects, let us consider the report of
PW-245, Ex.PW245/7. A perusal of this report shows
that PW-245 has carried out DNA profiling by
polymerase chain reaction and HLA DQ Alpha PCR test

because the samples of DNA were very small in
quantity and for conducting RFLP analysis larger
amounts of undegraded DNA samples is required,
which was not available in the present case and
accordingly out of the disputed samples exhibited
as Ex.D to Ex.T, in the report, Ex.PW245/7, only
Ex.D,E and F i.e the tissues of muscles taken from
right leg, left leg and the head of the skull were
found to be fit for DNA profile whereas the Ex.G to
Ex.T were found to be highly degraded because of
improper storage leading to decomposition. After
amplification of DNA by PCR method, the HLA DQ
Alpha typing was done and it was held that Ex.D, E
and F (right leg muscle, left leg muscle and tissue
from the skull) are positive for DQ Alpha 1 & 4
which are also present in Ex. A, B i.e the blood of
mother and father of the deceased, which indicates
that these have been inherited from the sources of
parents and on this premises, PW-245 concludes that
both the legs and the head belongs to one and the
same individual, who is a biological off spring of
Smt.Surjit Kaur and Harnek Singh and as such these
body parts are of Dilawar Singh son of these
persons, who was only missing son of these persons.

458. Needless to say, the DNA test is a perfect

450

test because the DNA profile of two individuals
matches only one in one lakh persons, which
shows that it is a 100% Scientific test having no
scope of doubts.

459. No doubt PW-245 was cross examined by
learned defence counsel, who took great pains to
trace the literature as to the technical aspect of
the DNA test and tried to challenge the report of
PW-245 on the grounds that it has not been properly
carried out as the disputed samples of DNA of two
legs and the skull was highly decomposed and were
degraded and were not fit for analysis and PCR
method of analysis is not conclusive. However, from
the reasons given by PW-245 in his report,
Ex.PW245/7 along with all the annexures and the
cross examination faced by this witness, it clearly
spells out that this witness was having no motive
to give a false report.

460. He has categorically stated that he
compared only those profiles which were fit for
analysis, since a DNA in a particular tissue can
survive, whereas it can die in other tissue because
of their unique chromosomes. As far as the
technical objections regarding depositing of
samples and mentioning of date of receipt of the
samples as 7.9.1995 is concerned again this is
without any basis because in the report itself it
is mentioned at so many places that the samples

451

were collected by PW-245 in Hypernised bottles and
were received in the laboratory on 8.9.1995 and the
date 7.9.1995 on the heading may have been because
of typographical mistake.

461. At the same time, PW-245 has categorically
stated that all the samples remained with him from
the time those were taken till it reached the
Laboratory and he has also explained that he has
done the reguisite tests from the samples taken by
him in the hypernised bottles and the samples taken
by PW-6 were also used for conducting reguisite
test. As far as the plea of learned defence counsel
that PW-245 has failed to bring his bench notes and
as such he could not cross examine him on this
aspect, is concerned, it makes no difference
because testimony of PW-245 is an expert witness
and it can be evaluated in the light of the oral
evidence led by the prosecution, as to the identity
of the two legs and the skull. Therefore, the
opinion of the PW-245 can be pressed into service
to corroborate the stand taken by PW-99.

462. Now let us discuss the evidence of PW-99,
who has given the primary evidence as to the
identity of two legs and the skull. Accordingly,
this witness, who is real brother of deceased
Dilawar Singh, when stepped into the witness box
categorically deposed that on 30.8.1995, his
brother, Dilawar Singh along with accused Balwant

452

Singh stayed in his house at Chandigarh and on the
next morning when he left the house in Car No. DBA-
9598, Ex.P76, Dilawar Singh told him that he should
flee away from Chandigarh along with family
otherwise Police will kill them as Dilawar Singh
and Balwant Singh are going to perpetuate a big
offence .

463. He further deposed that on 31.8.1995 at
7.00 p.m, he heard television news and came to
know that Beant Singh, Chief Minister has been
assassinated in Bomb blast and at that moment he
realised that his brother Dilawar Singh is involved
in this assassination and he left his Chandigarh
house for his native place along with his family.
On 2.9.1995, he again read the entire matter in the
news paper along with the photographs of the car
and was convinced that his brother Dilawar Singh
and Balwant Singh are involved in this blast.

464. He further deposed that on 5.9.1995, this
witness contacted the CBI and then he along with
his father went to P.G.I and saw two legs and the
skull and his father identified the same to be of
Dilawar Singh, as per the memo of identification,
Ex. PW99/1 .

465. He further deposed that he has also seen
the one black lace shoe, Ex.P50 and it was the same
shoe which his brother was wearing on the morning

453

of 31.8.1995, when he left his house.

466. He further deposed that after that their
blood samples were taken and they were sure that
his brother has killed himself to kill Beant Singh
and on 5.11.1995, his father moved an application,
Ex.PW99/5 to take the delivery of the remnants of
Dilawar Singh and thereafter they received the same
from the Hospital as per the receipt, Ex.PW99/6 and
cremated the same.

467. As far as the plea of learned defence
counsel regarding non examination of parents of
deceased Dilawar Singh, is concerned, it makes no
difference because it was PW-99, who knows all the
facts and he has also proved the stand of his
parents on guestion identification of body parts of
deceased Dilawar Singh.

468. Thus, the oral testimony of PW-99 coupled
with the facts and circumstances proved in evidence
and admission made by Balwant Singh corroborated by
the report of DNA expert PW-245, Ex.PW245/7, it is
proved beyond doubt on file that two legs and skull
recovered from the spot were body parts of the
deceased Dilawar Singh, who acted as a suicide
bomber and caused this blast and executed the plan
to kill Beant Singh, as per the conspiracy hatched
between Balwant Singh and deceased Dilawar Singh
and others .

454

POINT FOR DETERMINATION NO: 2.

469. In view of above discussion and conclusion
now let us come to the second point for
determination, which is the most material point, as
far as the accused contesting this trial are
concerned, that : -

Whether this bomb blast was caused by the
deceased Dilawar Singh in execution of a
conspiracy hatched by accused Wadhawa
Singh and Mehal Singh (proclaimed
offenders) with the other accused
persons, who were absconding and who are
facing trial in this case and all of them
were the part and parcel of that
conspiracy and committed different acts
of omissions and commissions in pursuance
of their conspiracy leading to the
killing of deceased Beant Singh and
others?

470. To decide this controversy, we will have
to keep in mind, that nature of the offence and its
magnitude, itself shows that this operation was not
possible only by accused Balwant Singh and deceased
Dilawar Singh, as alleged by Balwant Singh, alone
as it involves multifarious preparations and
collection of huge materials to achieve the

455

ultimate goal of murder of Late Beant Singh. On the
other hand, this operation was possible only with
the help of many more persons that too after
hatching a well planned conspiracy involving men,
materials, money, motivation and movements, as put
forward by the prosecution. Thus let us scan the
evidence of the prosecution to decide this core
question .

471. This court is not oblivious of the fact
that keeping in view the nature of offence and the
circumstances under which it has been committed,
there cannot be any direct eye witness, who can say
how this blast took place, by whom and in what
manner, because it is not only difficult but almost
impossible to have direct evidence of conspiracy
and entire case is to be judged from the
circumstantial evidence brought on the file.

472. As far as the question of finding guilt
solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, is
concerned, as stated earlier, to know the true
genesis and find the guilt on the basis of the
circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
laid down the guidelines from time to time and the
process started with Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs.
State of M.P,AIR 1952 Supreme Court 343 wherein the
law was laid down in the following terms :-

"It is well to remember that in cases

456

where the evidence is of a
circumstantial nature, the

circumstance from which the

conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should be in the first instance be
fully established, and all the facts
so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused. Again the
circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency and
they should be such as to exclude
every hypothesis but the one proposed
to be proved. In other words, there
must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the
accused and it must be such as to
show that within all human
probability the act must have been
done by the accused.

473. Yet again in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs.

State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984, Supreme Court,
1622, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it
has been held that the following conditions must be
fulfilled before a case based on circumstantial
evidence is said to be fully proved including the
guilt of the accused persons :-

(1) the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should be fully established. The
circumstances concerned must or
should and not may be established.

(2) The facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis

457

of the guilt of the accused, that
is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty.

(3) The circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency.

(4) They should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be
proved; and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must
the act must have been done by the
accused .

(6) Suspicion, however grave, cannot be
substituted for a proof and the
courts shall take utmost precaution
in finding an accused guilty only on
the basis of circumstantial evidence.

It was further observed that:

"We can fully understand that though
the case superficially viewed bears an
ugly look so as to prima facie shock
the conscience of any Court yet
suspicion, however great it may be,
can not take the place of legal proof.
A moral conviction however strong or
genuine can not amount to a legal
conviction supportable in law.
It must be recalled that the well
established rule of criminal justice
is that "fouler the crime higher the
proof". In the instant case, the life
and liberty of a subject was at stake.
As the accused was given a capital
sentence, a very careful, cautious and

458

meticulous approach was necessary to
be made . "

The murder might have been committed
in a very cruel and revolting manner
but that may itself be a reason for
scrutinizing the evidence a bit more
closely .

474. Similarly in, Bhagat Ram Vs State of

Punjab, AIR 1954, Supreme Court, page 621, it was

laid down that where the case depends upon the
conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative
effect of the circumstances must be such as to
negative the innocence of the accused and bring
home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.

4 75. Similarly in, C.Chenga Reddy Vs. State of

A.P, 1996(10) SCC, page 193 wherein it has been
observed that : -

"In case based on circumstantial
evidence, the settled law is that the

circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is drawn should be fully proved
and such circumstances must be conclusive
in nature. Moreover, all the

circumstances should be complete and
there should be no gap left in the chain
of evidence. Further, the proved
circumstances must be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence . "

47 6. In Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A.P, AIR

1990, Supreme Court, 79 it was laid down that when

459

a case
evidence

rests upon
must satisfy

circumstantial evidence, such
the following tests:

1 . the circumstances from which an inference
of guilt is sought to be drawn must be
cogently and firmly established;

2 . those circumstances should be of a
definite tendency unerringly pointing
towards guilty of the accused.

3 . The circumstances , taken cumulatively,
should from a chain so complete that
there is no escape from the conclusion
that within all human probability the
crime was committed by the accused and
none else; and

4 . the circumstantial evidence in order to
sustain conviction must he complete and
incapable of explanation of any other
hypothesis than that of guilt of the
accused and such evidence should not only
be consistent with the guilt of the
accused but should be inconsistent with
his innocence."

477. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book

'Wills" Circumstantial Evidence (Chapter VI) lays
down the following rules specially to be observed
in the case of circumstantial evidence:

1. the facts alleged as the basis of
any legal inference must be clearly
proved and beyond reasonable doubt
connected with the factum probandum;

2. the burden of proof is always on
the party who asserts the existence
of any fact, which infers legal
accountability;

3. in all cases, whether of direct
or circumstantial evidence the best

460

evidence must be adduced which the
nature of the case admits;

4. in order to justify the inference
of guilt, the in culpatory facts
must be incompatible with the

innocence of the accused and
incapable of explanation, upon any
other reasonable hypothesis than
that of his guilt and if there be
any reasonable doubt of the guilt
of the accused, he is entitled as of
right to be acquitted.

478. In state of Goa Vs. San jay and others

2007 (2) RCR (criminal) page 458, again all the above
principles were reiterated.

479. As stated earlier, the entire case of the

prosecution is that deceased Beant Singh along with
16 other persons was killed by way of human bomb
and assassin Dilawar Singh in consequence of a well
laid conspiracy by all the accused persons facing
trial in this case along with the other persons,
who have been declared proclaimed offenders or who
are absconding. As such first question comes what
is the legal position as to the factum of
conspiracy and the evidence required to prove the
same .

480. Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code

defines 'Criminal Conspiracy' as follows:

"When two or more persons agree to do ,
or cause to be done
(a) an illegal act

461

(b) an act which is not illegal by

illegal means, such an agreement
is designated a criminal
conspiracy .

Provided that no agreement
except an agreement to commit an
offence shall amount to a
criminal conspiracy unless some
act besides the agreement is done
by one or more parties to such
agreement in pursuance thereof.

Explanation- it is immaterial whether
the illegal act is the ultimate
object of such agreement, or is
merely incidental to that object.

481. Section 120-B which prescribes in sub

Section (1) the punishment for criminal conspiracy
provides :

"Whoever is a party to a criminal
conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable with death, (imprisonment for
life) or rigorous imprisonment for a
term of two year or up wards, shall,
where no express provision is made in
the Court for the punishment of such a
conspiracy, be punished in the same
manner as if he had abetted such
offence . "

482. Like most crimes, conspiracy requires an

act (actus reus) and accompanying mental state
(mensrea) . The agreement constitutes that act, and
the intention to achieve the unlawful objective of
that agreement constitutes the required mental
state. In the face of modern organized crime,

462

complex business arrangements in restraint of
trade, and subversive political activity,
conspiracy law has witnessed expansion in many
forms. Conspiracy criminalises in agreement to
commit a crime. All conspirators are liable for
crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy
by any member of the group, regardless of whether
liability would be established by the law of
complicity .

483. To put it differently, the law punishes

conduct that threatens to produce the harm, as well
as conduct that has actually produced it. Contrary
to the usual rule that an attempt to commit a crime
merges with the complete offence, conspirators may
be tried and punished for both the conspiracy and
the completed crime. The rationale of conspiracy is
that the required objective manifestation of
disposition to criminality is provided by the act
of agreement. Conspiracy is a clean destine
activity. Persons generally do not form illegal
covenants openly. In the interests of security, a
person may carry out his part of a conspiracy
without even being informed of the identity of this
kind can rarely be shown by direct proof, it must
be inferred from circumstantial evidence of co-
operation between the accused. What people do is,
of course, evidence of what conspiracy, the
prosecution must show that he agreed with others
that together they would accomplish the unlawful

463

object of the conspiracy.

484. Another major problem which arises in

connection with the requirement of an agreement is
that of determining the scope of a conspiracy- who
are the parties and what are their objectives. The
determination is critical, since it defines the
potential liability of each accused. The law has
developed approach the question of scope, Once such
model is that of a chain, where each party in
accomplishing the criminal objectives of the
conspiracy. No matter how diverse the goals one
objective; to promote the furtherance of the
enterprise. So far as the mental state is
conspiracy are the intent to agree and the intent
to promote the unlawful objective of the
conspiracy. It is the intention to promote a crime
that lends conspiracy its criminal cast.

485. Conspiracy is not only a substantive

crime. It also serves as a basis for holding one
person liable for the crimes of others in cases
where application of the usual doctrines of
complicity would render that person liable. Thus,
one who enters into conspiratorial foreseeable
crime committed by every other member of the
conspiracy in furtherance of its objectives,
whether or not he knew of the crimes or aided in
their commission. The ration able is that criminal
acts done in furtherance of a conspiracy may be

464

sufficiently dependent upon the encouragement and
support of the group as a whole to warrant treating
each member of a casual agent to each act. Under
this view, which of the conspirators committed the
substantive offence would be less significant in
determining the defendant's liability than the fact
that the crime was performed as a part of a larger
division of labour to which the accused had also
contributed his efforts.

486. Regarding admissibility of evidence,

loosened standards prevail in a conspiracy trial.
Contrary to the usual rule, in conspiracy
prosecutions , any declaration by one conspirator,
made in furtherance of a conspiracy and during its
pendency, is admissible against each co-
conspirator. Despite the unreliability of hearsay
evidence, it is admissible in conspiracy
prosecutions. Explaining this rule, Judge Hand,
in (Van Riper Vs. United States 13 F.2d 961, 967 (2d
Cir, 1926) said:

"Such declarations are admitted upon no
doctrine of the law of evidence, but of
the substantive law of crime. When men
enter into an agreement for an unlawful
end, they become ad hoc agents for one
another, and have made 'a partnership in
crime'. What one does pursuant to their
common purpose, all do, and as
declarations may be such acts, they are
competent against all."

465

487. Thus conspirators are liable on an agency
theory for statements of co-conspirators, just as
they are for the overt acts and crimes committed by
their conf errers .

488. Interpreting the provisions in Sections
120A and 120B of the IPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Yash Pal Mittal Vs. State of Punjab,
(1977) 4 SCC 540, in para 9 at pages 543 and
544, made the following observations:

" The offence of criminal conspiracy under
Section 120-A is a distinct offence
introduced for the first time in 1913
in Chapter V-A of the Penal Code. The

very agreement, concert or league is the
ingredient of the offence. It is not
necessary that all the conspirators

must know each and every detail of the
conspiracy as long as they are co-
conspirators in the main object of the
conspiracy. There may be so many devices
and technigues adopted to achieve the
common goal of the conspiracy and there
may be division of performances in the

chain of actions with one object to
achieve the real end of which every
collaborator must be aware and in which
each one of them must be interested. There
must be unity of object or purpose but
there may be plurality of means sometimes
even unknown to one another, amongst the
conspirators. In achieving the goal
several offences may be committed by some
of the conspirators even unknown to the
others. The only relevant factor is that
all means adopted and illegal acts done
must be and purported to be in furtherance
of the object of the conspiracy even

466

though there may be sometimes misfire or
overshooting by some of the conspirators.
Even if some steps are resorted to by one
or two of the conspirators without the
knowledge of the others it will not
affect the capability of those others when
they are associated with the object of the
conspiracy . "

489. The significance of criminal conspiracy
under Section 120-A is brought out pithily by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in, Major E.G Barsay Vs.
State of Bombay, (1962) 195:

"The gist of the offence is an agreement
to break the law. The parties to such an
agreement will be guilty of criminal

conspiracy, though the illegal act

agreed to be done has not been done. So
too, it is not an ingredient of the
offence that all the parties should agree
to do a single illegal act. It may
comprise the commission of a number of
acts. Under Section 43 of the Indian Penal
Code, an act would be illegal if it is an
offence or it it is prohibited by law.
Under the first charge the accused are

charged with having conspired to do
three categories of illegal acts, and
the mere fact that all of them could not
be convicted separately in respect of
each of the offences has no relevancy in
considering the question whether the
offence of conspiracy has been committed.
They are all guilty of the offence of
conspiracy to do illegal acts, though for
individual offences all of them may not be
liable."

490. Similarly the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in
Dr.Dattatrya Narayan Samant and others Versus State

467

of Maharahtra reported in 1982 Crl.L.J. 1025

"The most important ingredient of the
offence of conspiracy is the agreement
between two or more persons to do an
illegal act. The illegal act may or
may not be done in pursuance of the
agreement , but the very agreement is an
offence punishable under S.120-B of the
Penal Code. Entering into an agreement by
two or more persons to do an illegal act
or legal act by illegal means and not
merely an intention to do such acts
constitutes the very quintessence of the
offence of conspiracy. So long as such a
design rests in intention only, it is
not indictable. The prosecution must
further show that the agreement was
entered into and that there was a meeting
of minds between two or more persons or
as is described etymologically ,
conspiracy means breathing together and
two people cannot breathe together unless
they put their heads together. The gist
of offence of conspiracy lies not in
doing the act or effecting the purpose
for which the conspiracy is formed,

nor in attempting to do any of the act,
nor in instigating others to do them, but
in the forming of the scheme of agreement
between the parties. It is well settled
that an agreement can be proved either
by direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence or by both. What the prosecution
must prove by the positive evidence is
that there was a positive agreement in
the minds of two or more persons or

there was a meeting of minds to do an

unlawful act or to do a lawful act by
unlawful design. For example, if two
burglars should decide independently to
burgle the same house on the same
night, their independent decision would
not constitute a conspiracy. A conspiracy

468

is not merely a concurrence of wills, but
a concurrence resulting from agreement
between the two."

491. Similarly, the question comes what is the

amplitude of Section 10 of the Evidence Act to
prove a conspiracy and the Hon'ble Apex Court in
State of Tamilnadu Versus S. Nalini and others,
1999 Crl.Law Journal, page 3124, known as Rajiv
Gandhi murder case, while taking into consideration
the entire case law on the point, laid down some of
the broad principles governing the law of
conspiracy in the following words : -

(1) Under Section 120 A IPC offence of
criminal conspiracy is committed when two
or more persons agree to do or cause to be
done an illegal act or legal act by
illegal means. When it is a legal act by
illegal means over act is necessary.
Offences of criminal. conspiracy is an
exception to the general law It is
intention to commit crime and joining
hands with persons having the same
intention. Not only the intention but
there has to be agreement to carry out the
object of the intention, which is an
offence. The question for consideration in
case is did all the accused have the
intention and did they agree that the
crime be omitted it would not be enough

469

for the office of conspiracy when some of
the accused merely entertained a wish,
howsoever horrendous it may be, that
offence be committed.

(2) Acts subsequent to the achieving of
the object of conspiracy may tend to prove
that a particular accused was party to the
conspiracy. Once the object of conspiracy
has been achieved, any subsequent act,
which may be unlawful, would not make the
accused a part of the conspiracy like
giving shelter to an absconder.

(3) Conspiracy is hatched in private or
in secrecy. It is nearly impossible to
establish a conspiracy by direct evidence.
Usually, both the existence of the

conspiracy and its objects have to be
inferred from the circumstances and the
act and conduct of the accused.

(4) Conspirators may for example, be
enrolled in a chain- A enrolling B, B
enrolling C, and so on; and all will be
members of a single conspiracy if they so
intend and agree, even though each member
knows only the person, who enrolled him
and the person whom he enrolls. There may
be a kind of umbrella-spoke enrollment,

470

where a single person at the center does
the enrolling and all the other members
are unknown to each other, though- they
know that there are to be other members .
These are theories and in practice it may
be difficult to tell which conspiracy in a
particular case falls into which category.
It may however even overlap. But then
there has to be present mutual interest.
Persons maybe members of single conspiracy
even though each is ignorant of the
identity of many others who may have
diverse roles to play. It is not a part of
the crime of conspiracy that all the
conspirators need to agree to play the
same or an active role.

(5) When two or more persons agree to
commit a crime of conspiracy, then
regardless of making or considering any
plans for its commission, and despite the
fact that no step is taken by any such
person to carry out their common purpose,
a crime is committed by each and every one
who joins in the agreement. There has thus
to be two conspirators and there may be
more than that. To prove the charge of
conspiracy it is not necessary that
intended crime was committed or not. If
committed it may further help prosecution

471

to prove the charge of conspiracy.

(6) It is not necessary that all
conspirators should agree to the common
purpose at the same time. They may join
with other conspirators at any time before
the consummations of the intended
objective, and all are equally
responsible. What part each conspirator is
to play may not be known to everyone or
the fact as to when a conspirator joined
the conspiracy and when he left.

(7) A charge of conspiracy may prejudice
the accused because it forces them into a
joint trial and the court may consider the
entire mass of evidence against every
accused. Prosecution has to produce
evidence not only to show that each of the
accused has knowledge of the object of
conspiracy but also of the agreement. In
the charge of conspiracy the court has to
guard itself against the danger of
unfairness to the accused. Introduction of
evidence against some may result in the
conviction of all, which is to be avoided.
By means of evidence in conspiracy, which
is otherwise inadmissible in the trial of
any other substantive offence, prosecution
tries to implicate the accused not only in

472

the conspiracy itself but also in the
substantive crime of the alleged
conspirators. There is always difficulty
interacting the precise contribution of
each member of the conspiracy but then
there has to be cogent and convincing
evidence against each one of the accused
charged with the offence of conspiracy. As
observed by Judge learned Hand "this
distinction is important today when many
prosecutors seek to sweep within the
dragnet of conspiracy all those who have
been associated in any degree whatever
with the main offenders.

(8) As stated above it is the unlawful
agreement and not its accomplishment,
which is the gist or essence of the crime
of conspiracy. Offence of criminal
conspiracy is complete even though there
is no agreement as to the means by which
the purpose is to be accomplished. It is
the unlawful agreement which is the
gravamen of crime of conspiracy. The
unlawful agreement which amounts to a
conspiracy need not be formal or express,
but may be inherent in and inferred from
the circumstances, especially

declarations , acts and conduct of the
conspirators . The agreement need not be

473

entered into by all the parties to it at
the same time but may be reached by
successive actions evidencing their
joining of the conspiracy.

(9) It has been said that a criminal
conspiracy is a partnership in crime, and
that there is in each conspiracy a joint
or mutual agency for the prosecution of a
common plan. Thus, if two or more persons
enter into a conspiracy, any act done by
any of them pursuant to the agreement is,
in contemplation of law, the act of each
of them and they are jointly responsible
therefor. This means that everything said,
written or done by any of the conspirators
in execution or furtherance of the common
purpose is deemed to have been said, done
or written by each of them. And this joint
responsibility extends not only to what is
done by any of the conspirators pursuant
to the original agreement but also to
collateral acts incidental to and growing
out of the original purpose. A conspirator
is not responsible, however, for acts done
by co-conspirator after termination of
the conspiracy. The joinder of a
conspiracy by a new member does not create
a new conspiracy not does it change the
status of the other conspirators

474

individually or in groups perform
different tasks to a common end does not
split up a conspiracy into several
different conspiracies.

(10) A man may join a conspiracy by word
or by deed. However, criminal

responsibility for a conspiracy requires
more than a merely passive attitude
towards an existing conspiracy. One who
commits an overt act with knowledge of the
conspiracy is guilty. And one who tacitly
consents to the objects of a conspiracy
and goes along with other conspirators,
actually standing by while the others put
the conspiracy into effect, is guilty
though he intends to take no active part
in the crime .

492. To proceed further let us see what

sequence of events have been attributed by the
prosecution to prove the birth of conspiracy,
association of different persons with each other to
hatch the conspiracy, preparations made by the
accused persons and its execution. In this regard
the prosecutions has relied upon the following
sequences : -

1 . Accused Mahal Singh and Wadhawa Singh,

475

since proclaimed offenders, prevailed upon
Jagtar Singh Hawara to eliminate S.Beant
Singh, he being the main hurdle in
creation of 'Khalistan' and enemy number
one of the Sikh comunnity.

2. Jagtar Singh Hawara came to India to
do the needful and stayed with the
absconding accused Kuldeep Singh @ Ram
Singh in H.No.341-A, Nandgram Colony,
Ghaziabad (UP) .

3. Sometime in March/April 1995,
accused Harjit Singh, who is an old friend
Balwant Singh, came to India and met
Balwant Singh at Patiala and stayed with
him and both of them also agreed to kill
Beant Singh because of his attrocities on
Sikh community. Balwant Singh agreed to
do, provided necessary inputs are made
available. Harjit Singh assured all help
to Balwant Singh and Balwant Singh gave
the telephone number of Bhushan Sirhandi
for future contacts in this regard.

4. Some time in early June, 1995 Harjit
Singh rang up Balwant Singh on the
aforesaid Telephone Number and told him
that some old sikh gentleman would contact
him in connection with the task they had

476

disclosed and agreed to execute.

5. In June, 1995, Manjinder Singh @
Babaji, s/o Ujagar Singh (a BKI activist),
came to Delhi and stayed in room no. 37 of
Gurudwara Seesh Gan j , Delhi. Said Manjinder
Singh along with Jagtar Singh Hawara
established contacts with accused Balwant
Singh on the telephone number of Bhusahn
Sirhindi .

6. On June, 23.6.1995, Manjinder Singh @
Babaji booked Room No. 203 in Surya Guest
House, Darya Gan j , Delhi, where he,
accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh
Hawara assembled and discussed the
security arrangement of S.Beant Singh and
also the modalities to assassinate S.Beant
Singh .

7 . After returning from Delhi to
Patiala, accused Balwant Singh met
Dilawar Singh and discussed with him his
meeting with Manjinder Singh @ Babaji and
Jagtar Singh Hawara. Both Balwant Singh
and Dilawar Singh decided to work
together to carry out the plan to
assassinate S.Beant Singh. They also
associated accused Lakhwinder Singh, who
was their close friend, in the conspiracy

477

8. Accused Jagtar Singh Hawara contacted
Shamsher Singh s/o Surjit Singh r/o
Village Ukasi Jattan, Distt Patiala, some
time in June, 1995 and joined him in the
conspiracy .

9. In July, 1995 accused Paramjeet
Singh, who was already member of
conspiracy, introduced Jagtar Singh Hawara
to Jagtar Singh Tara in New Delhi, and
told him that accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
is a member of Babbar Khalsa International
and had returned from Pakistan. Paramjeet
Singh requested Jagtar Singh Tara to help
Jagtar Singh Hawara in the 'task' for
which Jagtar Singh Tara agreed.

10. Later on, in the same month i.e July,
1995 Paramjeet Singh, Navjot Singh and
Jagtar Singh Hawara met Jagrup Singh at
his house in Mohali, Paramjeet Singh told
them that S.Beant Singh, then CM Punjab
and KPS Gill DGP Punjab were to be killed,
as they were responsible for the killing
of several jathedars in false encounters.
Jagtar Singh Hawara assured the
availability of arms and explosives for
this purpose and all the aforesaid agreed
to the said plan.

478

11. In the first week of July, 1995
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara held a meeting
with accused Balwant Singh at latter ' s
residence i.e H.N0.68/A, Rattan Nagar,
Patiala and discussed the security
arrangements for S.Beant Singh. They
finalised the plan to kill S.Beant Singh
through a 'human bomb' in the Punjab &
Haryana Civil Secretariat for which they
decided to get stitched a cloth belt to be
stuffed with explosives etc which was to
be strapped by the assassin. They also
decided to procure an Ambassador Car to
facilitate the entry of the assassin into
the Secretariat. Jagtar Singh Hawara took
up the responsibility of arranging the
car. Few more uniforms were also got
stitched as suggested by Jagtar Singh
Hawara .

12. Around 10th August, 1995 Jagtar Singh
Hawara and Shamsher Singh engaged Truck
No. PB12-A-7947 of Sapinder Singh alias
Pappu (Shamsher 's cousin) from Village
Lalroo and in the said Truck they went to
a place near Ajnala in Amritsar Distt.
close to Indo-Pak border and from there
brought two bags full of explosives. The
said bags were brought in the said truck

479

to Village Ukasi Jattan. Shamsher Singh &
Jagtar Singh Hawara concealed these bags
in the house of Shamsher Singh in Village
Ukasi Jattan, Distt. Patiala.

13. Accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, brought
a big sack on a Scooter from the house of
Shamsher Singh in Village Ukasi Jattan to
the house of accused Nasib Singh in
Village Jhingran Kalan, P.S.Kurali, Distt.
Ropar. The said big sack contained two
' kattas ' containing explosives and remote
control devices etc. Accused Nasib Singh
at the behest of Jagtar Singh Hawara
concealed the said explosives etc in his
house fully knowing that it will be used
to kill Beant Singh.

14. Jagtar Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh
Tara purchased a steel grey colour
Ambassador Car No. DBA-9598 on 20.8.1995
for Rs.32,000/- from Smt . Reva Dutta, w/o
Shri S.K. Dutta, r/o Paschim Vihar, New
Delhi, to be used in the commission of the
crime. Jagtar Singh Tara had falsely
signed the delivery note of the said car
as Basant Singh. Jagtar Singh Tara brought
car no. DBA-9598 to the house No.B-50,
Vishwakarma Park, Laxmi Nagar, Shakarpur,
Delhi of Paramjit Singh. Paramjit Singh

480

kept the said car at his house from 20th
August to the morning of 24th August,
1995.

15. On 23.8.1995, Jagtar Singh Hawara
telephonically sent a coded message to
Jagtar Singh Tara at the residence of Shri
Mohan Raj Shekhar, his employer, to reach
Punjabi University, Patiala on the next
day with the said car.

16. On 24.8.1995, Jagtar Singh Tara along
with Paramjeet Singh left Delhi by Car No.
DBA-9598 and reached Punjabi University,
Patiala, where accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
and Balwant Singh met them. They decided
that the next meeting would be held in
Gurdwara Dukh Nivaran at 7.00 a.m next day
i.e 25.8.1995.

17. On 25.8.1995, Paramjeet Singh and
Jagtar Singh Tara reached Gurudwara Dukh
Nivaran, Patiala, in Car No. DBA-9598,
where Jagtar Singh Hawara, Balwant Singh
and Dilawar Singh were already present.
Thereafter Jagtar Singh Hawara, Paramjeet
Singh, Balwant Singh, Jagtar Singh Tara
and Dilawar Singh left Patiala in Car No.
DBA-9598 and reached Village Jhingra
Kalan, P.S.Kurali, Distt. Ropar. They

481

collected two bags containing remote
control devices, electric wires and
explosives (RDX) etc from the house of
Nasib Singh, where they were earlier kept
by Jagtar Singh Hawara.

18. Thereafter , on the same day i.e
25.8.1995, all of them reached H. No. 981,
Phase 4, Mohali of accused Gurmeet Singh
who was also a close friend of acussed
Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh and who
was also having leaning towards task and
thus made part of conspiracy. Jagtar
Singh Hawara, kept some of the explosive
materials out of the aforesaid two bags.

19. Then, all of them i.e accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara, Paramjit Singh, Balwant
Singh, Jagtar Singh Tara & Dilawar Singh
went to H. No. 243, Phase 7, Mohali of
Jagrup Singh, where Jagtar Singh Hawara
and Paramjeet Singh, kept the remote
control devices and the remaining
explosive materials.

20. On 26.8.1995, Jagtar Singh Hawara
asked Paramjeet Singh to contact Dilawar
Singh, (assassin), and get car No. DBA-
9598 painted to 'off white' to give it a
look of an official car. Gurmeet Singh,

482

Lakhwinder Singh and Dilawar Singh
(assassin) and one other, took car No.
DBA-9598, to shop No. 24, Sector 7,
Chandigarh of Surendra Sharma and
delivered it for painting it 'off white'.
Lakhwinder Singh paid advance of Rs.1500/-
and they insisted that the car should be
ready by 29.8.1995 or latest by 30.8.1995.

21. On 27th or 28th August , 1 9 95 , accused
Lakhwinder Singh got the waist of a khaki
colour pant loosened by Anil Kumar,
tailor, for use by Dilawar Singh. Jagtar
Singh Hawara after procuring the explosive
materials and storing them in Nasib
Singh's house at Village Jhingra Kalan and
purchasing the car no. DBA 9598 and
leaving it with Paramjit Singh and Jagtar
Singh Tara at Delhi, went to Patiala again
on 21st August, 1995 and met Balwant
Singh. On 22.8.1995 Jagtar Singh Hawara
and Balwant Singh brought some explosive
material to Balwant Singh's house in
Patiala .

22. Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant Singh
got stitched two cloth belts for the
purpose of making a belt bomb, from
Stitch-Co Jeans, A.C. Market, Patiala.
Delivery of one belt was taken on

483

25.8.1995 evening and that of the second
one on 27.8.1995 evening.

23. Accused Jagtar Singh Hawara & Balwant
Singh also purchased other materials
required for preparation of the bomb
including electric wires, battery, switch
and ball bearings etc from Patiala. The
explosive material that was brought on
22.8.1995 to Balwant Singh's house was
filled in one of the cloth belts in
Balwant Singh's house was filled in one of
the cloth belts in Balwant Singh's house.
Some ball bearings were also added to it.

24. On 28.8.1995 Balwant Singh, Dilawar
Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara, Gurmeet Singh
and Lakhwinder Singh remade the belt bomb
by adding some more explosive material and
RDX and nuts/bolts into the cloth belt in
the house of accused Gurmeet Singh at
house NO. 981, Phase. IV, SAS Nagar, Mohali
during night hours. It was agreed that
accused Dilawar Singh will wear the belt
containing the explosives etc and will act
as human bomb to kill Beant Singh.

25. On 29.8.1995, accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara, Jagtar Singh Tara, Jagrup Singh
and Paramjit Singh concealed the remote

484

control devices, explosives and wires etc
in the cavity of the harmonium brought by
Jagrup Singh. The aforesaid materials had
been brought by the aforesaid accused
persons to the house of Jagrup Singh on
25.8.1995. The said harmonium was kept in
the house of Jagrup Singh. Further, the
aforesaid accused concealed the remaining
firearms and explosives in two tubes and a
plastic cover. Thereafter Navjot Singh
took the above material to his house at
H. No. 889, Phase 3-B-2 along with Jagtar
Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh Tara and
concealed it there.

26. In the evening of 29.8.1995 accused
Dilawar and Balwant Singh went to the shop
of Surinder Sharma on the scooter of
Lakhwinder Singh and they asked for the
Car. But the car was not ready at that
time. Surendra Sharma told them that the
car would be delivered on the next day i.e
30.8.1995.

27. In the forenoon of 30.8.1995, accused
Dilawar Singh and Balwant Singh again went
to the shop of Surender Sharma on Scooter
No.PCP-2085 belonging to accused
Lakhwinder Singh for taking delivery of
car no . DBA 9598. Since the car was not yet

485

ready, both of them waited there. Later,
in the afternoon when the painting work
was about to be complete, Balwant Singh
left on the scooter and came back to the
shop after sometime with Dalbir Singh @
Maula after collecting the Khaki pant from
Lakhwinder Singh. The pant was taken out
of the dickey of the scooter and handed
over to Dilawar Singh. The Scooter was
given to Maula. Dilawar Singh and Balwant
Singh took delivery of the car and made
the balance payment of Rs.1500/-.

28. On 30.8.1995 at about 3.00 p.m.
accused Balwant Singh along with accused
Dilawar Singh procured car no. DBA 9598,
from Surendra Sharma after it had been
painted "off-white". The said car was
brought by them to the house of accused
Gurmeet Singh at Mohali where Dilawar
Singh strapped the belt bomb containing
explosives on his body. Balwant Singh,
Jagtar Singh Hawara and Dilawar Singh
proceeded to accomplish the mission.
Accused Jagtar Singh Tara also joined them
on the way. Accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
got down from the car on way and went to
Chandigarh Bus Stand. When Balwant Singh,
Dilawar Singh and Jagtar Singh Tara
reached the Secretariat, they found that

486

S.Beant Singh had already left.

29. On the night of 30.8.1995, Dilawar
Singh and Balwant Singh took car No. DBA
9598 to house No. 3031/1 Sector 45,
Chandigarh and stayed there for the night
with Chamkaur Singh brother of Dilawar
Singh .

30. On 31.8.1995 accused Jagtar Singh Tara
and Dilawar Singh went to Punjab & Haryana
Civil Secretariat in Car No . DBA 9598 and
reached there at about 3.00 p.m.. Accused
Balwant Singh followed them on his Scooter
No. PB-11-1955. After sometime Jagtar
Singh Tara left Secretariat leaving behind
Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh in the
car. Both of them waited for the coming
down of S.Beant Singh at the VIP Gate of
the Secretariat. As soon as S.Beant Singh
was about to sit in the car, the 'Human
Bomb' approached him and caused explosion
killing S.Beant Singh and others and also
causing injuries to many. Accused Dilawar
Singh also got exterminated in the
process .

31. After the commission of the crime
accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh
Hawara run away and stayed at various

487

places in India and remainedf in touch
with each other. For some time they also
stayed together with another accused
Kuldip Singh @ Ram Singh.

493. As stated earlier, the entire case of the

prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and
after considering the case put forward by the
prosecution in consonance with the evidence, it
comes out that the prosecution has relied upon the
following main circumstances to prove its case as
to the factum of conspiracy between all the accused
persons and its execution.

1. The motive for commission of the crime
as reiterated by accused Balwant Singh
while confessing the crime.

2. Judicial confessions made by the
accused Jagtar Singh Tara, Balwant
Singh and Shamsher Singh.

3. Extra judicial confessions made by the
accused persons to different witnesses.

4 . Recoveries of incriminating articles on
disclosure statement made by some of
the accused persons.

5. The act & conduct of the accused
persons after commission of the crime.

6. Direct evidence of some witnesses as to
the factum of conspiracy by the accused
persons .

488

494. As per the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex

Court, the moot question is, how to prove the
meeting of mind and entering into conspiracy? For
this one may refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Kehar Singh Versus State (Delhi
Administration) (supra) known as Indira Gandhi
murder case, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that the conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial
evidence as well as by direct evidence and that
though the conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, the
prosecution must prove some physical manifestation
of agreement although it may not be necessary to
prove actual meeting of two persons or the words
by which the two persons communicated. The Supreme
Court further said that the evidence regarding
transmission of thoughts and sharing of unlawful
design may be sufficient.

4 95. Similarly in Leela Dass Versus Union of

India, 1999, Criminal Law Journal, page 1807, the

Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that since the
direct evidence to prove the conspiracy is rarely
available, therefore, the circumstantial evidence
must be clear and the circumstances proved before,
during and after the occurrence have to be
considered to decide about the complicity of the
accused .

496. Before taking the evidence of prosecution,

489

let us take a issue raised by learned defence
counsel as to the applicability of Section 10 of
the Evidence Act to the case in hand as he
submitted that the entire evidence of the
prosecution regarding judicial confessions made by
some of the accused persons, extra judicial
confessions made by the accused persons and the act
and conduct of the accused persons after the
commission of the crime, can not be considered for
any purpose whatsoever either to prove the factum
of conspiracy or its execution, as far as the
accused other than who had allegedly suffered, by
taking shelter of Section 10 of Evidence Act
because Section 10 of the Evidence Act clearly says
that once the conspiracy is terminated and ceased
to exist, no evidence thereafter can be considered
to apply the presumption of Section 10. While
saying so, he has relied upon Mirza Akbar Vs. King
AIR 1940, Privy Council, page 176, Jayendra
Saraswati Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2005 (1) RCR,
(Criminal) , page 629 and Bhawan Sarup and others
Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965, Supreme Court,
page 682 .

497. However, after considering the case law

relied upon by both the parties on this aspect and
after considering their rival contentions, it comes
out that the plea raised by learned defence counsel
is true to some extent but is not proper
interpretation of Section 10 of the Evidence Act.

490

498. No doubt, as alleged by learned defence
counsel, the interpretation of Section 10 of the
Evidence Act was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court
directly in Bhagwan Sarup's case (Supra), where
while dealing with the nature of the evidence that
should be adduced to sustain the case of
conspiracy, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the
conspiracy may be proved by direct evidence or may
be inferred from acts and conduct of the parties.
There is no difference between the mode of proof of
the offence of conspiracy and that of any other
offence; it can be established by direct evidence
or by circumstantial evidence but Section 10 of the
Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency and
if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied,
the act done by one is admissible against the
conspirator .

499. The Hon'ble Apex Court after reiterating
the wordings of Section 10 of the Evidence Act,
interpreted the same in the following words : -

"This section, as the opening words
indicate, will come into play only when
the Court is satisfied that there is
reasonable ground to believe that two or
more persons have conspired together to
commit an offence or an actionable wrong,
that is to say, there should be a prima
facie evidence that a person was a party
to the conspiracy before his acts can be
used against his co-conspirators. Once

491

such a reasonable ground exists, anything
said, done or written by one of the
conspirators in reference to the common
intention, after the said intention was
entertained, is relevant against the
others, not only for the purpose of
proving the existence of the conspiracy
but also for proving that the other person
was a party to it. The evidentiary value
of the said acts is limited by the
circumstances, namely, that the acts shall
be in reference to their common intention
and in respect of a period after such
intention was entertained by any one of
them. The expression "in reference to
their common intention" is very
comprehensive and it appears to have been
designedly used to give it a wider scope
than the words "in furtherance of" in the
English law; with the result, anything,
said, done or written by a co-conspirator,
after the conspiracy was formed, will be
evidence against the other before he
entered the field of conspiracy or after
he left it. Another important limitation
implicit in the language is indicated by
the expressed scope of its relevancy.
Anything so said, done or written is a
relevant fact only "as against each of the
persons believed to be so conspiring as
well for the purpose of proving the
existence of the conspiracy as for the
purpose of showing that any such person
was a party to it. It can not be used in
favour of the other party or for the
purpose of showing that such a person was
not a party to the conspiracy.

500. In short, the section can be analysed as

follows :

(1) There shall be a prima facie

492

evidence affording a reasonable
ground for a Court to believe that
two or more persons are members of
a conspiracy;

(2) if the said condition is
fulfilled, anything said, done or
written by any one of them in
reference to their common intention
will be evidence against the other;

(3) anything said, done or written by
him should have been said, done or
written by him after the intention
was formed by any one of them;

(4) it would also be relevant for the
said purpose against another who
entered the conspiracy whether it
was said, done or written before he
entered the conspiracy or after he
left it; and

(5) it can only be used against a co-
conspirator and not in his favour.

501. Actually, the above said principles were
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sardar
Sardul Singh Caweshar Vs. State of Maharashtra,
AIR, 1965, Supreme Court, page 682 and those were
reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwan
Swrup ' s case (Supra) .

502. Not even this, these principles were

493

again reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kehar
Singh Vs. State (Supra) known as Indira Gandhi
murder case where the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case
of similar facts & circumstances involving the
dispute of conspiracy leading to the assassination
of Indira Gandhi, then Prime Minister, again stated
that : -

"it is well settled that act or action of
one of the accused could not be used as
evidence against the other. But an
exception has been carved out in Section
10 in cases of conspiracy and once it is
established that there is reasonable
ground to believe that two or more
persons have conspired together, in the
light of the language of Section 120-A,
the evidence of action or statements made
by one of the accused, could be used as
evidence against the other for the purpose
of proving the existence of conspiracy as
well as the fact that the other persons
was a party to it."

503. Not even this, the plea raised by learned

defence counsel has been answered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Sardul Singh's case (Supra), where
decision of Privy Council in Mirza Akbar's case

(Supra) has been referred to and the Hon'ble Apex
Court settled that : -

"The limits of the admissibility of
evidence in conspiracy case under Section
10 of the Evidence Act have been
authoritatively laid down by the Privy
Council in Mirza Akbar Vs. King Emperor
(Supra) . In that case, their Lordships of

494

the Privy Council held that Section 10 of
the Evidence Act must be construed in
accordance with the principle that the
thing done, written or spoken, was
something done in carrying out the
conspiracy and was receivable as a step
in the proof of the conspiracy. They
notice that evidence receivable under
Section 10 of the Evidence Act of
"anything said, done or written by any
one of such persons: (i.e., conspirators)
must be "in reference to their common
intention . "

504. Actually this plea has been raised by

learned defence counsel to say that the confessions
made by some of the accused persons after their
arrest can not be taken into consideration even if
the same are proved to be true and voluntarily
made, against any other accused persons.
Admittedly, the plea of learned defence counsel is
legally tenable to this extent but as far as the
plea that anything proved against a co-accused
concerning his act and conduct in prosecution of
conspiracy, can not be considered against the other
accused under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act
is concerned, it is not tenable.

50 5. Later on, in State of Tamilnadu Vs.

Nalini ' s case (Supra), which is known as Rajiv

Gandhi murder trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court again
considered this question and held that where it is
prima facie proved that there was a criminal
conspiracy between two or more persons then

495

anything said or done by any of conspirator become
substantive evidence against the other, provided
that should have been a statement in reference to
their common intention. And the Hon'ble Apex Court
answered the relevancy of a confession made by an
accused after his arrest against the co-accused in
the following words : -

"But the contention that any statement of
a conspirator, whatever be the extent of
time, would gain admissibility under
Section 10 of it was made "in reference"
to the common intention, is too board a
proposition for acceptance. We can not
overlook that the basic principle which
underlies in Section 10 of the Evidence
Act is the theory of agency. Every
conspirator is an agent of his associate
in carrying out the object of the
conspiracy. Section 10, which is an
exception to the general rule, while
permitting the statement made by one
conspirator to be admissible as against
another conspirator restricts it to the
statement made during the period when the
agency subsisted. Once it is shown that a
person became snapped out of the
conspiracy, any statement made subsequent
thereto can not be used as against the
other conspirators under Section 10.

506. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that

whether a particular accused had ceased to be a
conspirator or not, at any point of time, is a
matter which can be decided only on the facts of
that particular case. Normally a conspirator's
connections with the conspiracy would get snapped

496

after he is nabbed by the Police and kept in their
custody because he would thereby ceased to be the
agent of other conspirators and as such a
confession made by an accused can not be used as
substantive evidence against the other accused on
the principle enunciated in Section 10 of the
Evidence Act. But it can be used only for the
limited purpose of corroboration of the other
evidence, although such a confession is admissible
and reliable and can be used against a confessor as
substantive evidence.

507. With the above discussed legal back-

ground, let us now take the main circumstances of
the prosecution to bring home the factum of
conspiracy between the accused facing trial in this
case .

Motive behind conspiracy, if any,
its proof and relevancy.

508. First of all, let us take the existence

of the motive, if any and its relevancy. Needless
to say, the prosecution is not bound to prove the
motive of offence in any criminal trial, in as
much as motive is known only to the perpetrator of
the crime and may not be known to the others .
However, if the motive is alleged and proved by the
prosecution, the court has to consider it and see
whether it is adequate.

497

509. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Suresh Chandra Bahri and others Vs. State of Bihar,
AIR, 1994, Supreme Court, Page 2420 held that
sometimes motive plays and important role and
becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and
therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant
factor for which evidence may be adduced. A motive
is something which prompts a person to form and
opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or
even a legal act but with illegal means with a
view to achieve that intention. In a case where
there is clear proof of motive for the commission
of the crime it affords added support to the
finding of the Court that the accused was guilty
for the offence charged with. But the absence of
proof of motive does not render the evidence
bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless
untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it
is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who
knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a
certain course of action leading to the commission
of the crime.

510. Accordingly in the present case, the
motive behind this assassination as alleged by the
prosecution is duly established on record from the
confession of accused Balwant Singh, not made to
the Police or a Magistrate but before this Court
during the trial and after the completion of trial.

498

511. In this regard, as stated earlier,
accused Balwant Singh from the very beginning of
the trial admitted and confessed that he and
deceased assassin Dilawar Singh had killed Beant
Singh for the cause of independence of Khalistan
and because of the fact that Beant Singh was killer
of thousands of innocent Sikhs and started claiming
himself as incarnation of Guru Gobind Singh. He
also justified the killing with a theory that
during the period of 'Dharam Yudh Morcha' by the
Sikh community for the religious and political
demands of the Sikhs, the Govt of India, led by
Congress, was not happy and with an intention to
suppress the movement, the Govt of India in June,
1984 mounted an operation known as 'Blue Star
Operation', by which the armed force personnel
entered the Golden Temple Complex at Amritsar and
ravaged the same resulting into loss of life and
property as well as damage to Akal Takht at Golden
Temple and killed thousands of innocent persons.

512. And as per this accused, it has offended
the religious feelings of Sikh community and
resentment was expressed by every Sikh. Not even
this, after the killing of Indira Gandhi, then
Prime Minister of India, the Congress Govt indulged
into riots in Delhi and killed so many innocent
Sikh persons, who were having no connections with
the murder and no action has been taken against the
guilty .

499

513. He further claimed that after that the
congress govt formed Govt in Punjab and made Beant
Singh as Chief Minister despite the fact that the
elections of 1992 were boycotted by almost all the
political parties of the State. Beant Singh after
becoming Chief Minister indulged into killing of
thousands of innocent Sikhs in false encounters and
their dead bodies were cremated as unclaimed and
all this was done by him on the instigation of the
congress govt at Delhi. Not even this, after that
he started claiming himself to be an Ambassador of
peace and compared himself with Guru Gobind Singh.

514. And because of this act & conduct of Beant
Singh, they decided to kill him and he along with
deceased Assassin Dilawar Singh killed him on
31.8.1995 and he being a member of 'Khalistan'
Liberation Force will continue his movement for the
liberation of khalistan.

515. Even accused Jagtar Singh Tara (since
proclaimed offender) has also confessed this crime
with the same theory and motive. The prosecution
alleged that the main organization behind this
conspiracy was Babbar Khalsa International, headed
by accused Wadhawa Singh and Mahal Singh, who
hatched this conspiracy in collusion with accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara. Even this fact is also proved
on the file in view of certain documentary

500

evidence .

516. No doubt, as submitted by learned defence
counsel, even if we ignore the documents, Ex.P137
to Ex.P149, relating to the constitution and the
activities of the Babbar Khalsa International,
being not proved as per the reguirements of the law
and based on hear-say evidence, still, there is
another set of facts, which proves that within
hours of this assassination, Babbar Khalsa
International had claimed the responsibility for
killing the Beant Singh as per the motive put
forward by accused Balwant Singh.

517. In this regard, PW-38, K.N. Prabhakar , of
Hind Samachar Group of Papers and PW-35,
P.Ganapati, who was working in the office of UNI,
the premier news agency of India, have proved that
within hours of the killing, they received fax
messages, which are mark AAA, mark BBB, Mark CCC,
mark DDD, mark FFF, with their photocopies and
these documents, which have been proved to have
been received by the news agencies, are clear proof
to support the motive theory put forward by
accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh Tara.

518. Above all, PW-35, V.Ganpati categorically
deposed that at about 11.30 p.m., on 31.8.1995, he

was informed that a fax message has been received
in the office of the UNI and he accordingly cleared

501

the fax message for distribution to all the
subscribers. He further deposed that on 6.9.1995
another message, from Babbar Khalsa International
was recovered on their fax machine and he further
identified the original fax messages, mark AAA and
mark BBB and stated that he handed over these
messages to the CBI . Similarly, PW- 38,
K . N . Prabhakar , Personal Assistant to the editor
Hind Samachar, Group of News Papers, Jalandhar
deposed that on 31.8.1995, he received fax messages
mark DDD, mark EEE from Babbar Khalsa International
claiming responsibility for the killing of Beant
Singh. On 7.9.1995 he again received fax message
mark FFF and all these fax messages were handed
over to the CBI.

519. As far as the plea of learned defence

counsel that the fax massages have not been
verified from any source, is concerned, there is no
force in this plea because it is alleged by the
prosecution that these fax massages have been
received from Pakistan and if it is so, there is no
reciprocal arrangement between India and Pakistan
to issue a letter of request, as per the provisions
of Section 166-A of Cr.P.C, either to record the
evidence of the concerned person or to call any
witness to produce any such record to verify the
source of fax massages or its authenticity. As such
the investigating agency cannot be penalised for
this handicap and as such this court has to rely

502

upon the testimony of PW-35 and PW-38 on this
aspect specially when there is nothing on the file
to disbelieve them.

520. No doubt both these witnesses could not
identify the signatures of the persons, who signed
these fax messages but the prosecution has examined
PW-207, Harcharan Singh, a co-villager and known
person of Wadhawa Singh and PW-209, Tara Singh, a
co-villager of Mehal Singh and both these witnesses
have categorically deposed that the fax messages,
mark AAA, mark DDD, mark EEE and mark FFF, bear the
signatures of Wadhawa Singh and Mehal Singh and
they identify their signatures.

521. As per PW-207, Wadhawa Singh, who belongs
to his Village and who studied with him in the
School and was also known to him, being a member of
Co-operative Society of the Village and he can
identify the hand writing and signatures of Wadhawa
Singh and he accordingly identified the signatures
of Wadhawa Singh on the fax messages. Similarly,
PW-209 has also identified the signatures of Mehal
Singh on these fax messages. Not even this, PW-207
has also identified the photographs of Wadhawa
Singh on the poster, Ex.P150, which has been relied
upon by the prosecution with a limited purpose of
showing the factum of conspiracy by accused Wadhawa
Singh and Mehal Singh while sitting in Pakistan.

503

522. The testimony of both these witnesses have
been challenged by the learned defence counsel on
the plea that after a long gap of 10 to 15 years,
no body can identify the signature and hand writing
and in this case both PW-207 and PW-209 stated that
they have seen the hand writing of accused Wadhawa
Singh and Mehal Singh, way back about more than 15
years, specially when they have no direct
association with the said persons. However, there
is no force in this plea because there is nothing
on the record to say that both these witnesses have
not seen accused Wadhawa Singh and Mehal Singh
while writing or signing the documents or they were
having any motive to depose so.

523. At the same time, no suggestion was put to
both these witnesses that they never know accused
Wadhawa Singh and Mehal Singh and they have never
seen them while writing and signing the documents.
In State of HP Vs. Thakur Dass, 1982 Criminal Law
Journal, page 1694, the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh
High Court, reiterated the well settled principle
of law that when a statement made by a witness on
oath relating to some facts has not been challenged
in cross examination, the fact in question must be
held to be not disputed. Similar are the facts in
hand and as such the testimony of PW-207 and PW-208
remained unrebutted as far as the identity of the
signatures of accused Wadhawa Singh and Mehal Singh

504

are concerned.

524. No doubt, as stated earlier the
authenticity of documents, Ex.P-137 to Ex.P-149, is
not established as per the law, as PW-100, Dilbagh
Singh, who had brought these documents admitted
that he does not know the source of these documents
and all these documents are the photocopies
collected by him from different sources. If it is
so, these documents are based on hear-say and not
authenticated and admissible in evidence.

525. However, in view of the evidence of PW-207
and PW-209, coupled with the statement of PW-35 and
PW-38, it is proved on record that certainly, the
Babbar Khalsa International, has taken the
responsibility for the killing of deceased Beant
Singh and this fact further shows that Babbar
Khalsa International was also a perpetrator of the
conspiracy to kill Beant Singh. And accused Wadhawa
Singh and Mehal Singh were actively associated
with this conspiracy to fulfill the motive for
which this conspiracy was hatched. And lastly
accused Balwant Singh along with accused assassin
Dilawar Singh, were also having a motive to kill
Beant Singh, may be under a bonafide belief that by
killing Beant Singh, they may gain their religious
goal. Needless to say the crime charged is not
simply the murdering a human being, but it is the
crime of assassination of a duly elected Chief

505

Minister of a State. No doubt, the motive for the
crime was not personal and as such it can be
perpetuated only under such a motivated religious
goal, by playing with sentiments of vulnerable
persons like accused Balwant Singh and Dilawar
Singh, who even forget that this act is going to
kill some innocent persons also and so happens in
this case.

526. Even otherwise, as stated earlier under

this point, the only relevant question is whether
the remaining accused persons of this trial, except
accused Balwant Singh and assassin Dilawar Singh,
were also the conspirators in this conspiracy and
they did different acts to achieve their objective
as planed i.e to kill Beant Singh.

527. As discussed earlier, it is proved on the

file that Babbar Khalsa International has
perpetuated this crime either directly or
indirectly. No doubt, as argued by learned defence
counsels, the story of the prosecution that the
conspiracy of this crime was initiated in Pakistan
by accused Wadhawa Singh and Mehal Singh, has not
been substantiated during the trial, as none of the
prosecution witnesses could say anything or to show
any evidence to show that this conspiracy was
initially initiated in Pakistan. At the same time
we cannot overlook the fact with the kind of
bilateral relations between India and Pakistan, the

506

possibility of support of our neigbhour to create
unrest in India cannot be ruled out.

528. At the same time, it is submitted by the
learned defence counsel, the conspiracy, if any,
was initiated by the absconding accused Harjit
Singh, Manjinder Singh @ Baba Ji and Resham Singh,
who are settled in U.S. A, Germany and Norway. And
this plea shows that there was a conspiracy on the
international level to kill Beant Singh. As such it
is held that accused Wadhawa Singh and Mehal Singh
are the conspirators of this conspiracy and they
initiated the conspiracy, while sitting in
Pakistan .

529. No doubt, as submitted by learned defence
counsels, the prosecution has also failed to prove
that Babbar Khalsa International is banned
organization, as per the provisions of Unlawful
Activities Prevention Act, 1967, as no order of the
Tribunal competent under this Act, to declare this
organization as anti India and Terrorist
Organization has been brought on record. However,
this aspect has not much importance or relevancy as
far as the factum of conspiracy is concerned
because as stated earlier this crime is not
possible except with a planned conspiracy.

Recovery of car No. DBA- 95 98 near the
place of blast and its link with the

507

case and the accused persons .

530. As per the story of prosecution, when
scene of crime was inspected, Car No. DBA-9598,
exhibited as material article, Ex.P76, was
recovered and it was used by the accused persons to
enter the Secretariat posing the same to be an
official car, and ultimately all knots of genesis
of occurrence were untied and leads the police to
unearth the entire conspiracy including the role of
accused persons. If it is so, the first question
comes under what circumstances, this car was
recovered from the spot and how it is linked with
the commission of crime and then with the accused
persons .

531. To know the above query, let us take the
statement of PW-240, Inspector Nanha Ram, who was
the first Investigating Officer of the Chandigarh
Police, who conducted the investigations, till it
was taken over by the CBI and accordingly, when he
stepped into the witness box, he deposed that after
reaching at the spot of Bomb Blast, he took a
cursory look of the entire scene of crime and
started immediate remedial steps for sending the
injured to the Hospitals to save them and then he
extricated the dead bodies and conducted a detailed
inspection .

532. He further deposed that during his

508

inspection, he found that an Ambassador Car bearing
registration No. DBA-9598, Ex.P-76, was lying
abandoned in the parking area towards the Haryana
Secretariat and on inspection, he found that the
car was painted afresh, as it was still not dried
and this leads to a suspicion that this car might
have been used in the crime and ultimately he took
into possession that car after conducting the
search of the same as per the seizure memo,
Ex.PW177/6. Similarly on search, all the documents
and the articles recovered from the car were taken
into possession as per the seizure memo, Ex.PW177/7
and it includes the registration certificate of the
car, Insurance Cover Note along with other
documents, one slip, Ex.PW60/A, which was later on
found to be containing the couplet written by
accused Balwant Singh, when accused Dilawar Singh
was about to hit the target and a 9 volt battery.

533. As far as the recovery of the car from the

spot is concerned, this aspect is not seriously
contested by the defence counsels but it was
alleged that even if it is presumed that this car
was recovered from the spot, there is no cogent
evidence on the file to link it with the blast and
to prove that it was inspected on 1.9.1995 by PW-
178, in the presence of PW-241, Surinder Pal, DSP,
CBI and the alleged chance prints were lifted from
it and then compared and found to be of accused
Lakhwinder Singh and Balwant Singh, as the reports

509

of the experts in this regard are not admissible in
evidence .

534. Even otherwise, there is sufficient
evidence on the file, which proves that as stated
by PW-240, the car, Ex.P76 was found abandoned near
the scene of crime and it was taken into possession
by PW-240 as per the memo, Ex.P-177/6, along with
the bunch of keys, Article P-204. During his cross
examination, he has categorically stated that he
touched the body of the car and came to know that
it is freshly painted as the paint was not still
dried which forced him think that it has some
connection with the blast.

535. At the same time, the prosecution has
placed on the file two photographs of this car,
Ex.PW-119/69 and 70, which were duly identified by
PW-51, Surinder Kumar painter, who has repainted it
into white colour, as well as PW-50, Tarlok Nath
painter, who had painted the number plates of this
car mark QQQ and PPP. PW-119, who has proved the
taking of photographs, has not been cross examined
on this aspect, which further shows that the
recovery of the car is duly established on record
and there is nothing to disbelieve the same.

536. Once, the recovery of the car, Ex.P-76
from the spot is proved, let us come to the next
aspect as to the inspection of this car by the

510

experts. To decide the controversy as to the
inspection of the car, the testimony of PW-178,
S.K.Chadha, Senior Scientific Officer of the CFSL,
is very material. This witness is an expert of
Finger Print Examination, having experience of 18
years in this field.

537. When he (PW-178) stepped into the witness
box, he deposed that as per the directions of the
CBI authorities, he inspected the scene of crime as
well as the car, Ex.P-76, as per memo Ex.PW-178/1,
which was prepared by DSP, Surinder Pal Singh. He
categorically deposed that Shri Gautam Ram,
photographer of CFSL took the photographs of all
the available Chance Finger prints on the car, from
various angles under his supervision from all
available sources on Car and a memo, Ex.PW-178/2
was prepared in this regard.

538. He further deposed that the rear view
mirror of the car was removed and taken into
possession for examination in the lab and
thereafter, after receiving the specimen finger
prints of all the accused persons of this case, he
compared the same with the chance finger prints
lifted from the car and rear view mirror and
examined the same and as per his report Ex.PW-178/5
along with the annexures, Ex.PW-178/6 and Ex.PW-
178/7, he found that one of the chance finger
prints, mark Q-4 developed and photographed from

511

rear view mirror of the
specimen left thumb
Lakhwinder Singh marked
identified the rear view

car is identical with the
impression of accused
as LTS-24. He has also

mirror as article, P-155.

539. He further deposed that on 16.1.1996 he
took the specimen finger prints of accused Balwant
Singh on six sheets, Ex.PW-178/8 to Ex . PW-178/13,
in the Office of CBI,New Delhi and he also
identified accused Balwant Singh in the court and
deposed that after enlarging the photographs of the
specimen and the chance finger prints, one of the
chance finger print Q-15 was found to be identical
with the specimen finger print of Balwant Singh as
per his report Ex.PW-178/14 coupled with the
reasons Ex. PW-178/16 .

540. The learned defence counsel while
challenging the factum of inspection by this
witness alleged that there is a cutting on the memo
Ex.PW178/l, which shows that the digit 12 has been
changed from the original digit 10 and this
interpolation has been made just to wriggle out
from the fact that the investigations were taken
over by the CBI only on 1.9.1995 after 12.00 noon.

541. However, after considering the rival
contentions of both the parties on this aspect, it
comes out that this plea has no relevancy because
as stated earlier even if it is presumed that this

512

witness has examined the car even before taking
over the investigation by the CBI, it makes no
difference. At the same time, the Govt of Punjab
has ordered the CBI investigations on the evening
of 31.8.1995 itself. At the same time, PW-241, DSP
Surinder Pal has also deposed that the Car was
inspected in the Police Station, North, in the
presence of PW-178 and the proceedings were
completed by 2.30 p.m.

542. The other plea of learned defence counsel
is that PW-248, Mr . S . K . Saxena, Chief Investigating
Officer has admitted that he came to know about the
existence of Car only after 12.30 p.m and if it was
so, there was no guestion of asking Surinder Pal,
DSP or Mr . S . K . Chadha to inspect the same and this
shows that the entire story of inspection is
fabricated specially when no DDR has been recorded
in Police Station regarding the visit of the Expert
and the DSP, as admitted by PW-240 and as reguired
under the rules and this aspect also falsify the
inspection report.

543. However, after going through the testimony
of this witness and other witnesses, it comes out
that this plea of learned defence counsel is
totally misconceived as PW-248 has never admitted
that DSP Surinder Pal inspected the Car on his
direction. On the contrary, PW-241, Surinder Pal,
DSP has categorically stated that he inspected the

513

Car as per the directions of the Superior Officers
and even S.N.Saxena was not the Chief Investigating
Officer at that time.

544. It is categorically stated by PW-240,
Nanha Ram, SHO that after taking the car into
possession, he took it to the Police Station, North
and kept it there. It is also proved that when the
investigations of this case were taken over by the
CBI, this car was inspected on 1.9.1995 and
thereafter it remained parked in Police Station
North itself. Since this car was never removed from
the Police Station, as such there was no need to
make any entries in register no. 19 known as
malkhana register. Even, the CBI officials were not
obliged to make the entries in the Police Station
as to their inspection as this aspect was having no
concerned with the working of the Police Station,
once the investigations were taken over by the CBI .

545. The next plea of learned defence counsel
is that the presence of PW-190, ASI Ranjit Singh
during the inspection proceedings stands belied
from the copy of DDR no. 12 dated 1.9.1995 vide
which, he left the Police Station at 1.15 p.m., and
reached back at 8.25 p.m., as is recorded in DDR
no. 25 of the same day. Thus, his presence during
the inspection from 12.00 noon to 2.30 p.m. is
highly doubtful. However, this plea is also
baseless because even if it is presumed that ASI

514

Ranjit Singh left the Police Station and worst to
worst, he was not present till the completion of
the inspection proceedings, it makes no difference
because the only role of ASI Ranjit Singh was to
help the CBI officials, if required during the
inspection .

546. Even ASI Ranjit Singh was not cross
examined by the learned defence counsel on this
aspect and as to how his signatures are on the
inspection memo. It is also possible that although
the entry was made in the DDR but he actually did
not leave the Police Station till inspection was
completed specially when he has to leave the Police
station for patrolling purpose only.

547. Similarly, the plea of learned defence
counsel that PW-165 admitted that Shri S.K.Chadha
remained at the spot throughout the day of 1.9.1995
and thus not visited the Police Station is also
misconceived as PW-165 has also clarified that
although he remained at the spot throughout the day
but he can not tell whether the other experts also
remained there or gone else where.

548. One more related argument as to the
search of the Car, Ex.P76 put forward by the
defence counsel was that it is admitted case of PW-
240, Nanha Ram that various telephone numbers of
Delhi and Jaipur written on piece of paper and some

515

cash memos of petrol, a parking slip, were also
recovered from the car but no verification or
investigations have been made by the Police in this
regard. However, this plea is also misconceived
because admittedly all these papers were of the
month of February, 1995 or prior to that, when the
factum of conspiracy of this case was not even
conceived specially, when this car was sold to the
accused persons only on 20.8.1995. Similarly, the
non-examination of the sample of soil etc. taken
from the car has also no bearing on the merits of
the case.

549. Thus, there is nothing on the file to

disbelieve the recovery of the car, Ex.P-76 from
the scene of the crime and its inspection by PW-178
and PW-241 and taking of the chance finger prints.
As far as the evidentiary value of the finger print
reports is concerned, it will be considered while
discussing the case of accused persons
individually .

550. As far as the link of this car with the

accused persons and leading to unearth of the
conspiracy is concerned, as per the prosecution
after the recovery of the car from the spot and its
inspection and in view of the testimony of PW-99,
Chamkaur Singh, it was found that deceased Dilawar
Singh had caused this bomb blast by working as
suicide bomber and later on PW-51, Surinder Sharma,

516

painter, disclosed that he had re-painted the Car,
Ex.P76 on the asking of accused Lakhwinder Singh,
who was already known to him and he also named
accused Gurmeet Singh, Dilawar Singh and Balwant
Singh as the persons, who used to visit him in
connection with the re-painting of the car and
also named PW-114, Dalbir Singh @ Maulla, who once
come with the accused persons to his shop.

551. Thereafter accused Lakhwinder Singh and
Gurmeet Singh were arrested and the entire
conspiracy was unearthed and led to the arrest of
remaining accused persons, which ultimately leads
to know all the facts and circumstances of the
conspiracy till its execution, as set out above in
the confessions of the three accused persons.
Accordingly, during the investigation, the CBI
investigated all those aspects and collected
evidence to prove the role of each and every
accused persons, performed by them for the due
execution of the conspiracy.

552. It is already held while, taking the
motive theory that initially the conspiracy of this
case was hatched by accused Wadhawa Singh and Mehal
Singh, with the help of accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
and it is alleged by the prosecution that accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara came in contact with accused
Balwant Singh, with the intervention of accused
Harjit Singh @ Mini Bawa and they planned to kill
Beant Singh with the help of a human bomb and

517

thereafter they executed
details, mentioned above,
accused persons and various

this plan
after j
inputs .

as per the
oining other

553. Keeping into consideration the above

background, let us scan the evidence of the
prosecution further, to know how the conspiracy was
actually initiated and who were the planners of
this conspiracy. To know this fact, as mentioned
earlier, there can not be any direct evidence. On
the other hand, we have to consider the evidence of
the prosecution cumulatively. Accordingly, a resume
of the evidence of the prosecution shows that the
prosecution has relied upon the confessions of
accused Balwant Singh, Shamsher Singh and Jagtar
Singh Tara; and the extra judicial confessions made
by some of the accused persons including accused
Lakhwinder Singh, Balwant Singh, Gurmeet Singh,
Shamsher Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara before
different witnesses; the act and conduct of the
accused persons prior to and after the commission
of this crime including the evidence showing
preparations made by the accused for success of
conspiracy and discovery of all those places and
their identification; and other circumstantial
evidence gathered from the spot and different
witnesses, who saw different accused persons at the
scene of crime before the crime or after the crime
when they tried to evade arrest; to bring home the
factum of conspiracy.

518

Vol. Ill

Confessions of accused Balwant
Singh, Jagtar Singh Tara and
Shamsher Singh; making of the same
and its relevancy to the conspiracy
specially in reference to Section 10
and 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.

554. As far as the confessions are concerned,
first of all, let us take the confession of accused
Balwant Singh, Ex.PW65/F, which was recorded by PW-
65. However, as held above, this accused has
admitted and confessed the killing of Beant Singh
with the help of deceased accused Dilawar Singh but
he alleged that he never made any confession
regarding the factum of conspiracy and how it was
executed as alleged by the prosecution. In this
regard on 20.2.1996, he moved an application
retracting from his confession, Ex.PW65/F alleging
that his alleged confession is false and never made
by him. As such, let us decide this controversy to
know, whether the offence committed by accused
Balwant Singh and his co-accused Dilawar Singh was
in the manner and as per the conspiracy pointed out
by him in his confession, Ex.PW65/F.

555. The second confession relied upon by the
prosecution is the confession of accused Jagtar
Singh Tara since proclaimed offender. It will be
apposite to mention over here that after filing of

519

the charge sheet, accused Jagtar Singh Tara along
with remaining accused persons, was charge sheeted
and the trial was started against him along with
other accused persons and some evidence was also
recorded including the statement of PW-86, Balbir
Singh, then Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI,
Patiala. However, after recording of some evidence,
this accused escaped from the Jail and could not be
arrested so far and ultimately, he was declared as
proclaimed offender.

556. Learned defence counsel submitted that as
per the law laid down in State of Tamilnadu Vs.
Nalini etc, AIR 1999, Supreme Court, page 2640, as

reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ishar Singh
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR, 2004, Supreme
Court, page 3030, the confession of this accused
can not be considered for any purpose whatsoever as
far as the present trial is concerned, either to
decide the role of accused Jagtar Singh Tara or the
role of the remaining accused persons, even under
the provision of Section 10 of the Evidence Act
because this accused is no more an accused facing
trial in this case and if it is so, his
confessional statement can not be considered for
any purpose whatsoever as per the law laid down in
the above mentioned cases.

557. However, this question was replied by the
learned Public Prosecutor, saying that the point

520

raised by learned defence counsels is not tenable
in the present trial because the point in question
was decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court while
deciding the cases under the provisions of TADA Act
and under the provisions of Section 15(1) of the
TADA Act, 1987, because Section 15 sub-section (1)
provides that confessions of the maker can be
considered against the co-accused or the abetter
and conspirator only if both the accused making the
confession and co-accused facing trial in the same
trial. Whereas, this point is irrelevant where the
case is otherwise tried and this question was also
considered in State of Tamilnadu Vs. Nalini ' s case
known as Rajiv Gandhi murder trial, where the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that the joint trial of the
maker of the confession and the co-accused/co-
conspirator is a pre-condition to invoke the
presumption available under Section 15 (1) of the
TADA Act. But in other cases, the provisions of
Section 30 read with section 10 will apply to rely
upon the confession of an accused against the co-
accused .

558. Accordingly after considering the rival

contention of both the parties on this aspect, it
comes out that the plea raised by learned defence
counsel is not tenable as stated by learned Public
Prosecutor. After going through the principle laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in both the
authorities relied upon, it comes out that this

521

principle was laid down only for those cases where
the confession of the accused is as per the
provisions of Section 15 of the TADA Act and not
otherwise .

55 9. In State of Tamilnadu Vs. Nalini ' s case

Supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering
this aspect, held that Section 10 of the Evidence
Act is a special provision in order to deal with
dangerous combination. Normal rule of evidence that
prevents the statement of one accused being used
against another u/s 30 of the Evidence Act, does
not apply in the trial of conspiracy in view of
Section 10 of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court
further held that there is difference between
Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 15(1)
of TADA Act and the main difference pointed out by
learned Apex Court is that in case under Section
15(1) of the TADA Act, the maker of the confession
and the other accused should be tried jointly for
the same offence as is clear from the word
'charged' & 'tried' together used in this section,
whereas in case of Section 30 of the Indian
Evidence Act, it is not required that the joint
trial should be for the same offence.

560. Even in Haroon Haji Abdullah Vs. State of

Maharashta AIR 1988 S.C. 832, the Hon'ble Apex
Court while taking the confession of an accused,
who had died during the trial, against the other

522

accused persons, held that no doubt the confession
of a person, who is dead is not admissible in
evidence under section 30 which insists upon a
joint trial but such a statement becomes relevant
under section 30 read with section 32 (3) of the
Evidence Act. Similarly in the present case,
accused Jagtar Singh Tara is declared as proclaimed
offender as his whereabouts are not traceable and
as such his confession is on the footing as a
confession of a person who is not available
specially when he was charge sheeted along with
other co-accused and faced trial for sufficient
long time and even the evidence regarding making of
confession by this accused in the form of testimony
of PW-86, was recorded in his presence and an
opportunity of cross examination was granted.

561. At the same time, Section 30 of the

Evidence Act gives a discretion to the court to
take into consideration the confession against the
maker as well as against the co-accused. Whereas
u/s 15(1) of the TADA Act, the confession of the
accused recorded thereunder shall be admissible in
the trial of the maker of the confession as well as
against the co-accused, provided the co-accused,
abettor or conspirator, if charged and tried with
the accused for the same case. Although, both the
provisions required joint trial of the accused
making confession and the co-accused. Thus the plea
of learned defence counsel to exclude the

523

confession of Jagtar Singh Tara is not tenable.

562. Similarly in the present case, the accused
Jagtar Singh Tara was charge sheeted along with
remaining accused persons and he was charged and
tried together and even if he has been absconded
and declared a proclaimed offender, his confession
can be considered for assessing his role in the
conspiracy as well as the role of the remaining
accused persons as per the provisions of Section 30
and Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act. As such
let us consider the confession of accused Jagtar
Singh Tara and its legality and admissibility.

563. The third confession relied upon by the
prosecution is the confession of accused Shamsher
Singh as proved by PW-103, Dinesh Kumar Sharma,
then Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi. Although the learned defence counsel has
raised two technical objections regarding recording
of confession of accused Shamsher Singh after
filing of the first charge sheet and during the
pendency of the trial against him but this aspect
will be considered while taking the case of accused
Shamsher Singh individually. At present, we are
concerned only with the aspect as to whether the
confession made by the accused Shamsher Singh is
true and voluntarily made as per the requirements
of the law and the guidelines laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in different cases relied upon

524

by both the parties.

564. Before taking the evidence of the

prosecution on this point, let us consider the
legal position on the point of proof of confession,
its relevancy and admissibility against the maker
of the same and against the co-accused persons as
per the provisions of Section 30 of the Indian
Evidence Act read with Section 10 of the Indian
Evidence Act.

565. Before we turn our attention to the more

specific aspects of confessions, we should have a
conspectus of the law on the evidentiary value of
confessions, which are retracted, which is a
general feature in our country and elsewhere. This
question was also considered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in State Vs. Navjot Sandhu and the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that:

"Under the general law of the land as
reflected in the Indian Evidence Act, no
confession made to a police officer can be
proved against an accused. 'Confessions -
which is a terminology used in criminal
law is a species of 'admissions' as
defined in Section 17 of the Indian
Evidence Act. An admission is a statement
- oral or documentary which enables the
court to draw an inference as to any fact
in issue or relevant fact. It is trite to
say that every confession must necessarily
be an admission, but, every admission does
not necessarily amount to a confession.
While Sections 17 to 23 deal with

525

admissions, the law as to confessions is
embodied in Sections 24 to 30 of the
Evidence Act. Section 25 bars proof of a
confession made to a police officer.
Section 26 goes a step further and
prohibits proof of confession made by any
person while he is in the custody of a
police officer, unless it be made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate.
Section 24 lays down the obvious rule that
a confession made under any inducement,
threat or promise becomes irrelevant in a
criminal proceeding. Such inducement,
threat or promise need not be proved to
the hilt. If it appears to the court that
the making of the confession was caused by
any inducement, threat or promise
proceeding from a person in authority, the
confession is liable to be excluded from
evidence. The expression appears connotes
that the court need not go to the extent
of holding that the threat etc has in fact
been proved. If the facts and
circumstances emerging from the evidence
adduced make it reasonably probable that
the confession could be the result of
threat, inducement or pressure, the court
will refrain from acting on such
confession, even if it be a confession
made to a Magistrate or a person other
than police officer. Confessions leading
to discovery of fact which is dealt with
under Section 27 is an exception to the
rule of exclusion of confession made by an
accused in the custody of a Police
Officer. Consideration of a proved
confession affecting the person making it
as well as the co-accused is provided for
by Section 30. Briefly and broadly, this
is the scheme of the law of evidence vis a
vis confessions. The allied provision
which needs to be noticed at this juncture
is Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. It prohibits
the use of any statement made by any
person to a police officer in the course

526

of investigation for any purpose at any
enquiry or trial in respect of any offence
under investigation. However, it can be
used to a limited extent to contradict a
witness as provided for by Section 145 of
the Evidence Act. Sub Section (2) of
Section 162 makes it explicit that the
embargo laid down in the Section shall not
be deemed to apply to any statement
falling within clause (1) of Section 32 or
to affect the provisions of Section 27 of
the Evidence Act .

566. In the Privy Council decision of

P.Narayana Swami Vs. Emperor (AIR 1939 PC 47) Lord
Atin elucidated the meaning and purport of the
expression 'confession' in the following words:

"A confession must either admit in terms
the offence, or at any rate substantially
all the facts which constitute the
offence. An admission of a gravely
incriminating fact, even a conclusively
incriminating fact is not of itself a
confession .

Confessions are considered highly
reliable because no rational person would
make admission against his interest unless
prompted by his conscience to tell the
truth. "Deliberate and voluntary

confessions of guilt. If clearly proved
are among the most effectual proofs in
law". (Vide Taylor's Treatise on the Law
of Evidence Col. I) . However before acting
upon a confession the court must be
satisfied that it was freely and
voluntarily made. A confession by hope or
promise of advantage, reward or immunity
or by force or by fear induced by violence
or threats of violence can not constitute

527

evidence against the maker of confession.
The confession should have been made with
full knowledge of the nature and
conseguences of the confession. If any
reasonable doubt is entertained by the
court that these ingredients are not
satisfied, the court should eschew the
confession from consideration. So also the
authority recording the confession be it a
Magistrate or some other statutory
functionary at the pre-trial stage, must
address himself to the issue whether the
accused has come forward to make the
confession in an atmosphere free from
fear, duress or hope of some advantage or
reward induced by the persons in
authority. Recognizing the stark reality
of the accused being enveloped in a state
of fear and panic, anxiety and despair
while in police custody, the Indian
Evidence Act has excluded the
admissibility of a confession made to the
police officer.

Section 164 of Cr.P.C is a salutary
provision which lays down certain
precautionary rules to be followed by the
Magistrate recording a confession so as to
ensure the voluntariness of the confession
and the accused being placed in a
situation free from threat or influence of
the police."

567. As to what should be the legal approach of

the Court called upon to convict a person primarily
in the light of the confession or a retracted
confession has been succinctly summarized in Bharat
Vs. State of UP (1971) (3) SCC 950), where it was
observed thus:

528

"Confessions can be acted upon if the
court is satisfied that they are voluntary
and that they are true. They voluntary
nature of the confession depends upon
whether there was any threat, inducement
or promise and its truth is judged in the
context of the entire prosecution case.
The confession must fit into the proved
facts and not run counter to them. When
the voluntary character of the confession
and its truth are accepted, it is safe to
rely on it. Indeed a confession, if it is
voluntary and true and not made under any
inducement or threat or promise, is the
most patent piece of evidence against the
maker. Retracted confession, however
stands on a slightly different footing. As
the Privy Council once stated, in India it
is the rule to find a confession and to
find it retracted later. A court may take
into account the retracted confession, but
it must look for the reasons for the
making of the confession as well as for
its retraction, and must weigh the two to
determine whether the retraction affects
the voluntary nature of the confession or
not. If the court is satisfied that it
was retracted because of an after thought
or advice, the retraction may not weigh
with the court if the general facts proved
in the case and the tenor of the
confession as made and the circumstances
of its making and withdrawal warrant its
user. All the same, the courts do not act
upon the retracted confession without
finding assurance from some other sources
as to the guilt of the accused. Therefore,
it can be stated that a true confessions
made voluntarily may be acted upon with
slight evidence to corroborate it, but a
retracted confession reguires the general
assurance that the retraction was an after
thought and that the earlier statement was
true. This was laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in an earlier case reported in

529

Subramania Gopuinden Vs. The State of
Madras (1958 SCR 428) . "

568. Similarly the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Haroom Hazi Abdulla Vs. State of Maharashtra (1968
(2), reiterated that : -

"confession must be looked upon with
greater concern unless the reasons given
for having made it in the first instance
are on the face of them false. "There was
a further observation in the same
paragraph that retracted confession is a
weak link against the maker and more so
against a co-accused. With great respect
to the eminent Judge, the "weak link
against the maker" goes counter must be
viewed in the context of the fact that the
Court was concentrating on the confession
of the co-accused rather than the
evidentiary value of the retracted
confession against the maker."

569. Dealing with retracted confession, a four-
Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Pyare
Lai Vs. State of Assam (AIR 1957 SC 216), clarified
the legal position thus:

"A retracted confession may form the
legal basis of a conviction if the court
is satisfied that it was true and was
voluntarily made. But it has been held
that a court shall not base a conviction
on such a confession without

corroboration. It is not a rule of law,
but is only rule of prudence. It can not
even be laid down as an inflexible rule
of practice or prudence that under no
circumstances such a conviction can be

530

made without corroboration, for a court
may, in a particular case, be convicted of
the absolute truth of a confession and
prepared to act upon it without
corroboration; but it may be laid down as
a general rule of practice that it is
unsafe to rely upon a confession, much
less on a retracted confession, unless
the court is satisfied that the retracted
confession is true and voluntarily made
and has been corroborated in material
particulars . "

570. As to the extent of corroboration
required, it was observed in Subramania Gounden's
case (1958 SCR 428) that each and every
circumstance mentioned in the retracted confession
regarding the complicity of the maker need not be
separately and independently corroborated. The
Hon'ble Apex Coure held that:

"It would be sufficient in our opinion
that the general trend of the
confession is substantiated by some
evidence which would tally with what
is contained in the confession."

571. Then we have the case of Shankaria Vs.
State of Rajasthan (1978 (3) SCC 435) decided by a
three Judges Bench. And the Hon'ble Superme Court
settled the twin tests to be applied to evaluate a
confession and held as follows:

1. Whether the confession was perfectly
voluntary and

531

2. If so, whether
trustworthy. The test
question of applying
not arise. Then the
broad method by which
evaluated .
And it was said:

it is true and
is not satisfied the
the second test does
Court indicated one
a confession can be

"Satisfaction of the first test is a sine
qua non for its admissibility in evidence.
If the confession appears to the Court to
have been caused by any inducement, threat
or promise such as is mentioned in Section
24, Evidence Act, it must be excluded and
rejected brevi manu . In such a case, the
question of proceeding further to apply
the second test , does not arise. If the
first test is satisfied, the Court must,
before acting upon the confession reach
the finding that what is stated therein is
true and reliable. For judging the
reliability of such a confession, or for
that matter of any substantive pice of
evidence, there is no rigid canon of
universal application. Even so, one broad
method which may be useful in most cases
for evaluating a confession may be
indicated. The Court should carefully
examine for confession and compare it with
the rest of the evidence, in the light of
the surrounding circumstances and
probabilities of the case. If on such
examination and comparison, the confession
appears to be a probable catalogue of
events and naturally fits in with the rest
of the evidence and the surrounding
circumstances, it may be taken to have
satisfied the second test."

Similarly as to the interval which the

532

court should give to an accused to think over
before making a confession is concerned, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Shankaria ' s case (Supra)

further held that:

"there is no statutory provision in
Section 164, Cr.P.C or elsewhere, or to an
executive direction issued by the Court,
that there should be an interval of 24
hours or more between the preliminary
questioning of the accused and the
recording of his confession. The condition
precedent for recording a confession by
the Magistrate in the course of Police
investigation is that the Magistrate
should not record any confession unless
upon questioning the accused person making
it, he has reason to believe that it is
being made voluntarily. How much time for
reflection should be allowed to an accused
person before recording his confession, is
a question which depends on the
circumstances of each case. The object of
giving such time for reflection to the
accused, is to ensure that he is
completely free from Police influence. If
immediately before the recording of the
confession, the accused was in judicial
custody beyond the reason of the
investigating police for some days then
such custody from its very nature may
itself be a factor dispelling fear or
influence of the police from the mind of
the accused. In such a case, it may not be
necessary to send back the accused person
for any prolonged period to jail or
judicial lock-up."

573. The above mentioned principle was also

settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarwan Singh
Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957, Supreme Court, page

533

637 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that

"It would naturally be difficult to lay
down any hard and fast rule as to the
time which should be allowed to an
accused person in any given case before
recording his confession under Section
164. However, speaking generally, it
would be reasonable to insist upon giving
an accused person at least 24 hours to
decide whether or not he should make a
confession. Where there may be reason to
suspect that the accused has been
persuaded or coerced to make a
confession, even longer period may have
to be given to him before his statement
is recorded."

574. Similarly as to the admissibility of

retracted confession and its effect is concerned
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

"Where the accused, while retracting his
confession, did not say that he was
tutored by police to make the confession
but only said that he made it under
compulsion and threat and was false and a
perusal of the confessional statement
would show that prima facie there was
nothing improbable or unbelievable in it;
that it appeared to be a spontaneous
account, studded with such vivid details
about the manner of the commission of the
crimes in guestion, which only the
perpetrator of the crimes could know, and
the confession received assurance in
several material particulars from
reliable independent evidence, mainly of
circumstantial character, held the
confession, coupled with the other
evidence on the record, had unerringly

534

and indubitably brought home the charges
to the accused."

575. Even in Paramanand Pegu Vs. State of
Assam (2004 (7) SCC 779) , an authority relied by by
learned defence counsel, the Hon'ble Apex Court,
while adverting to the expression "corroboration of
material particulars" used in Pyare Lai Bhargava's
case clarified the position thus

"By the use of the expression
'corroboration of material particulars'
the Court has not laid down any
proposition contrary to what has been
clarified in Subramania Goundan case as
regards the extent of corroboration
reguired. The above expression does not
imply that there should be meticulous
examination of the entire material
particulars. It is enough that there is
broad corroboration in conformity wit6h
the general trend of the confession, as
pointed out in Subramania Goundan
case . "

576. The analysis of the legal position in
paragraphs 18 & 19 is also worth noting:

"Having thus reached a finding as to the
voluntary nature of a confession, the
truth of the confession should then be
tested by the Court. The fact that the
confession has been made voluntarily, free
from threat and inducement, can be
regarded as presumptive evidence of its
truth. Still, there may be circumstances
to indicate that the confession can not be
true wholly or partly in which case it
loses much of its evidentiary value.

535

In order to be assured of the
truth of confession, this Court, in a
series of decisions has evolved a rule of
prudence that the court should look to
corroboration from other evidence.
However, there need not be corroboration
in respect of each and every material
particular. Broadly, there should be
corroboration so that the confession taken
as a whole fits into the facts proved by
other evidence. In substance, the court
should have assurance from all angles that
the retracted confession was, in fact,
voluntary and it must have been true."

577. Similarly in Alok Nath Dutta Versus State

of West Bengal I (2007) CCR, 391 (Supreme Court) ,

again the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the above
said position in the following words :-

"Judicial confession must be recorded in
strict compliance of the provisions of
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. While doing so, the Court shall
not go by the black letter of law as
contained in the aforementioned provision,
but must make further probe so as to
satisfy itself that the confession is
truly voluntary and had not been by reason
of any inducement, threat or torture.

The Courts while applying the law
must give due regard to its past
experience. The past experience of the
Courts as also the decisions rendered by
the superior Courts should be taken as a
wholesom guide. We must remind ourselves
that despite the fact that procedural

536

safeguards contained in Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C may be satisfied, but the courts
must look for truthfulness and
voluntariness thereof. It must, however, be
remembered that it may be retracted
subsequently. The Court must, thus, take
adequate precaution. Affirmative

indication of external pressure will
render the retracted confession nugatory
in effect. The Court must play a proactive
role in unearthing objective evidence
forming the backdrop of retraction and
later the examination of such evidence of
retraction. However in cases where none
exists, the Court must give the benefit of
doubt to the accused. Where there is no
objective material available for verifying
the conditions in which the confession was
retracted, the spirit of Section 24 of the
Evidence Act (irrelevance of confession
caused by inducement) may be extended to
retracted confession. An inverse

presumption must be drawn from absence of
materials .

In case of retracted confession, the
Courts while arriving at a finding of
guilt would not ordinarily rely solely
thereupon and would look forward, for
corroboration of material particulars.
Such corroboration must not be referable
in nature. Such corroboration must be
independent and conclusive in nature.

Whatever be the terminology used, one
rule is also certain that no judgment of
conviction shall be passed on an
uncorroborated retracted confession. The
Court shall consider the materials on
record objectively in regard to the
reasons for retraction. It must arrive at
a finding that the confession was truthful
and voluntary. Merit of the confession
being the voluntariness and truthfulness,

537

the same, in no circumstances should be
compromised. We are not oblivious of some
of the decisions of this Court which
proceeded on the basis that conviction of
an accused on the basis of a retracted
confession is permissible but only if it
is found that retraction made by accused
was wholly on a false premise."

578. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in State

of Tamilnadu Versus Nalini.,1999 Criminal Law
Journal, page 3124 known as Rajiv Gandhi's
assassination case again considered the legal
position of the confessions vis a vis Section 30 of
the Evidence Act and held as under :-

"Sections 24 to 30 deal with confession,
Section 24 speaks of the effect of a
confession made by an accused through
inducement, threat or promise proceeding
from a person in authority. Whereas
Section 25 and Section 26 deal with
situations where such 'person or
authority' is police. It is an
institutionalized presumption against
confession extracted by police or in
police custody. In that frame of
reference, Section 24 is the genus and
Section 25 and 26 are its species. In
other words, Section 25 and Section 26 are
simple corollaries flowing out of the
axiomatic and generalized proposition
(confession caused by inducement where
inducement proceeds from a [person in
authority, is bad in law) contained in
Section 24. They are directed towards
assessing the value of a confession made
to a police officer or in police custody."

57 9. Similarly, in Babu Bhai Udesinh Parmar Vs.

538

State of Gujrat, IX (2006) SLT 117-IV (2006) CCR
372 (SC)-2006 (12) SCALE 385 , the Hon'ble Apex
Court settled that

"The policy underlying behind Sections 25
and 26 is to make it a substantive rule
of law that confessions whenever and
wherever made to the police, or while in
the custody of the Police unless made in
the immediate presence of a Magistrate,
shall be presumed to have been obtained
under the circumstances mentioned in
Section 24 and, therefore, inadmissible,
except so far as is provided by Section
2 7 of the Act."

Section 164, however, makes the
confession before a Magistrate admissible
in evidence. The manner in which such
confession is to be recorded by the
Magistrate provided under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said
provision, inter alia, seeks to protect
an accused from making a confession,
which may include a confession before a
Magistrate, still as may be under
influence, threat or promise from a
person in authority. It takes into its
embrace the right of an accused flowing
from Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of
India as also Article 21 thereof.
Although, Section 164provides for
safeguards, the same can not be said to
be exhaustive in nature. The Magistrate
putting the guestions to an accused
brought before him from police custody,
should some time, in our opinion, be more
intrusive than what is reguired in law

580. Applying the above settled propositions of

law, first of all let us take the confession of the

539

accused persons and to see whether making of these
confessions by these accused persons is proved as
per the law and the guidelines laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court.

581. Before doing so, let us point out the
material facts, which have been disclosed by the
accused Balwant Singh, Jagtar Singh Tara and
accused Shamsher Singh in their confession.

582. Accordingly on the perusal of the
confession of accused Balwant Singh, Ex.PW65/F
shows that he disclosed the following main
circumstances leading to this killing: -

(a) After joining the police
services, his father was killed by the
terrorists and some where in March,
April, 1995, his old friend Harjit
Singh, who was settled in U.S. A came to
India and met him and he discussed with
him about the excess committed by the
Police on the innocent persons on the
instigation of Beant Singh, then Chief
Minister, Punjab, who is also indulging
in dictatorship and as per that
discussion, both of them decided to kill
Beant Singh.

(b) Balwant Singh then disclosed

540

that he is ready to kill Beant Singh if
necessary in puts be provided to him and
Harjit Singh then told him that he will
discuss this matter in U.S. A and will
consider the plan.

( c ) Thereafter accused Balwant
Singh discussed this fact with his
friend deceased Dilawar Singh, who was
also ready to sacrifice himself for the
cause of his community.

(d) In the beginning of June, 1995
Harjit Singh rang up Balwant Singh and
asked him to meet his friend at Sheesh
Ganj Gurudwara, Delhi, where that person
was staying and waiting for Balwant
Singh .

(e) Accused Balwant Singh went to
Sheesh Ganj Gurudwara, where one person,
who was later on identified as accused
Manjinder Singh @ Bawaji, met him and
took him to a Hotel, where he introduced
Balwant Singh with accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara and all of them discussed the
planning to kill Beant Singh and Balwant
Singh also offered the services of his
friend Dilawar Singh for this purpose.
After discussions, accused Jagtar Singh

541

Hawara took his telephone number.

(f) In the first week of July,
Jagtar Singh Hawara came to Patiala and
stayed with accused Balwant Singh, where
the security arrangements of Beant Singh
were discussed and Jagtar Singh Hawara
disclosed that they will kill Beant
Singh with the help of a human bomb and
a car will be required to enter the
Secretariat. Jagtar Singh Hawara also
told that he will prepare the belt bomb.
Then a second meeting took place, which
was also attended by Dilawar Singh, and
the plan to kill Beant Singh was
finalised and Jagtar Singh Hawara
promised to arrange the necessary in
puts for this plan.

(g) Jagtar Singh Hawara arranged
the explosive RDX and also promised to
arrange the Car and asked for making of
a cloth belt to make the bomb. Accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant Singh
got stitched the cloth belt and police
uniforms from a tailor in the A.C market
at Patiala.

(h) On 24.8.1995, in the evening
Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant Singh

542

met at University Gate, Patiala, where
two persons were present with the Car
and all of them reached Gurudwara Dukh
Nivaran, Patiala. At Gurudwara Dukh
Nivaran, Patiala, Jagtar Singh Hawara
introduced two persons as Paramjit
Singh, who is facing trial in a separate
case and accused Jagtar Singh Tara since
proclaimed offender.

(i) On the next date, accused

Dilawar Singh was also called at Patiala
and all of them discussed the plan and
they decided to change the colour of the
car into 'off-white' to show it as an
official car.

(j) After that all of them

started for Chandigarh. On the way
Paramjit Singh got down and accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara etc. brought some
more explosive and all of them came to
Chandigarh after getting the belts and
uniforms .

(k) On 26.8.1995 Jagtar Singh

Hawara and Balwant Singh again met at
Patiala and prepared the belt bomb. On
27.8.1995 Dilawar Singh came to them
and some splinters etc were also

543

brought from the Kabari market and
added in the belt.

(1) On 28.8.1995 all of them met

at Chandigarh and the accused Dilawar
took them in a room in a house in
Phase-IV of Mohali, which was occupied
by accused Gurmeet Singh and accused
Gurmeet Singh was introduced by accused
Dilawar Singh to all of them.

(m) Thereafter accused Dilawar

Singh, Balwant Singh met accused
Lakhwinder Singh, who was already
joined in the conspiracy being a Police
Constable posted in Secretariat to know
the whereabouts of Beant Singh. On the
same night, some more explosives and
nut bolts were put in the belt bomb in
the room of accused Gurmeet Singh.

(n) On 29.8.1995 Dilawar Singh and

Lakhwinder Singh went on Scooter and
thereafter the car was taken from the
painter in the evening. Balwant Singh
and Dilawar Singh went to the Painter's
shop on the scooter of Balwant Singh
and the friend of accused Lakhwinder
Singh brought back the Scooter.

544

(o) After taking the delivery of

Car, Balwant Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara
and Dilawar Singh met in the room of
Gurmeet Singh and the belt was put on
by Dilawar Singh but when they reached
Secretariat, they found that Beant
Singh had already left and as such they
came back and parked the Car and
removed the belt bomb and the dress of
Dilawar Singh and kept the same in the
room of Gurmeet Singh.

(p) After that accused Balwant

Singh and Dilawar Singh met Lakhwinder
Singh and had liguor and then went to
the house of Chamkaur Singh, brother of
Dilawar Singh and stayed there for the
night .

(g) On 31.8.1995 accused Balwant

Singh and Dilawar Singh came to Mohali
where Jagtar Singh Hawara, Jagtar Singh
Tara etc were there. Thereafter, again
Dilawar Singh put on the belt bomb and
accused Jagtar Singh Tara and Dilawar
Singh went to Secretariat in the Car
whereas Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh
Hawara reached on their Scooter. On the
way Jagtar Singh Hawara got down and
after reaching Secretariat, he joined

545

Dilawar and Jagtar Singh Tara and they
waited for the movements of Beant
Singh .

( r ) At about 5.15 p.m when Beant
Singh came out Dilawar Singh went
towards VIP gate and Balwant Singh left
Secretariat on his Scooter and
thereafter Dilawar Singh exploded
himself and killed Beant Singh and
others .

(s) Then Balwant Singh disclosed

the places where he stayed with accused
Jagtar Singh Hawra and others and under
what circumstances, till his arrest.

583. Similarly accused Jagtar Singh Tara, in

his confession, Ex.PW-86/4 to Ex.PW-84/6 while
reiterating the facts stated by accused Balwant
Singh, disclosed that:-

a. Accused Paramjit Singh, (who is
being tried separately) who was also
residing in Delhi and was already known
to him.

b. In July, 1995 Paramjit
introduced him with accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara saying that he is active member

546

of Babbar Khalsa and came from Pakistan
after having training, with a mission to
kill Beant Singh, who is enemy of Sikh
community and he should help him.

c. He further disclosed that as per the
plan he and accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
purchased a ambassador car no. DBA-9598,
on 20-08-1995, from S.K.Datta of Pachim
Vihar Delhi for a sum of Rs . 32000/- and
he represented himself as Basant Singh
S/o Jagir Singh and parked the car in
the house of accused Paramjit Singh at
Delhi .

d. He further disclosed that as per the
plan and directions of Jagtar Singh
Hawara on receiving massage from him, he
and Paramjit Singh reached Patiala on
24-08-95 near University Gate, where
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara along with
Balwant Singh met him and asked him to
meet on 25-08-95 at Gurudwara Dukh
Niwaran .

e. On 25-08-95 he and Paramjit
Singh went to Gurudwara, where accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara, Balwant Singh and
Dilawar Singh met them and all of
started for Mohali. On the way accused

547

Jagtar Singh Hawara took the car towards
village Jhingran kalan and brought two
bags containing RDX and other articles
and they reached the house of accused
Gurmit Singh in Phase-IV, Mohali. On
reaching there some of the ammunition
was kept in the house of Gurmit Singh
whereas some part was kept in house of
accused Jagrup Singh.

f. On 26-08-95 as per the
directions of Jagtar Singh Hawara
accused Paramjit and Dilawar were asked
to get the car repainted into white
colour so that it looks like a Govt, car

g. On 28-08-95 accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara and Balwant Singh brought
some more arms and ammunition and kept
the same in the house of Jagrup Singh.
And after that some of the arms and
ammunition were shifted to the house of
accused Navjot Singh.

h. On 30-08-95 accused Lakhwinder
Singh and Dilawar Singh braught the car
after repaint and as per the plan he
along with accused Jagtar Singh Hawara,
Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh reached
Secretariat to kill Beant Singh at

548

about 4/4.30 pm but Beant Singh had
already left the Secretariat and as such
they came back to do the needful on the
next day.

i. On 31-08-95 they all again reached
Secretariat and at about accused Dilawar
Singh did the needful and killed Beant
Singh .

j . He also confessed that he had

already shown the house of S.K Dutta
from he had purchased the car and also
identified the house at village Jhingran
Kalan from where accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara brought RDX.

584. To the same effect is the confession of

accused Shamsher Singh. However, in addition to the
above facts, the other material facts disclosed by
him as to this conspiracy and its execution
including his own role and the role of the other
accused persons, are as follows :-

(a) That he was knowing accused

Jagtar Singh Hawara since 1993 through
another terrorist Didar Singh and as
such Jagtar Singh Hawara visited him on
and often.

549

(b) In the month of July, 1995

Jagtar Singh Hawara came to him and
disclosed to him that he has come from
Pakistan and Wadhawa Singh and Mehal
Singh have directed him to kill Beant
Singh and he i.e Shamsher Singh was also
not happy with the act and conduct of
Beant Singh, who was claiming himself to
be the incarnation of Guru Nanak Dev and
Guru Gobind Singh and as such he should
be punished.

( c ) On 7/8.7.1995 Jagtar Singh

Hawara requested him to help him for
their operation and asked him to meet
him i.e Jagtar Singh Hawara at Bangla
Sahib Gurudwara on 16.7.1995.

(d) On 16.7.1995 he met Jagtar Singh
Hawara at the above place where one more
person Harjit Singh @ Mini Bawa was also
present and got some instructions from
somebody on telephone and he returned
back .

(e) On 8.8.1995 Jagtar Singh Hawara
asked him that they have to go to a
Village near Ajnala to bring RDX to kill
Beant Singh and then he talked to some
person on telephone and asked him that

550

they are coming to get the RDX.

(f) After that Jagtar Singh Hawara
directed him to arrange a truck and meet
him at Rajpura bye-pass along with the
Truck. Accordingly, he requested
Sapinder Singh, his cousin brother, for
the truck and he agreed to provide his
Truck and he along with Sapinder Singh,
Dal jit Singh and one Bihari servant
reached Rajpura bye-pass. On the way,
Dal jit Singh and Bihari servant were
left at Village Ukasi. Then they reached
at Zimidara Dhaba, where one more person
met Jagtar Singh Hawara and he
accompanied them to a Village near
Aj nala

(g) After reaching at a distance of
20 to 25 kms away from Ajnala, Jagtar
Singh Hawara stopped the Truck and he
along with the other persons went to
some place and after some time came back
with two bags and asked him to keep the
same in the tool box of the truck. After
that, they started their journey and
returned back. On the way, a person, who
was called Lucky @ Toni got down and all
of them reached in his house and Jagtar
Singh Hawara kept both the bags in his

551

house and Sapinder Singh left with his
Truck .

(h) On 10.8.1995 Jagtar Singh
Hawara again met him near a Hotel at
Rajpura bye-pass and made a telephonic
call and talked in some coded language
and then disclosed him that he has
informed the caller that the human bomb
is ready but a vehicle is required.

(i) On the next day Jagtar Singh
Hawara took away both the bags of the
RDX on Bajaj Chetak Scooter and Jagtar
Singh Hawara promised him that they will
kill Beant Singh as early as possible.

585. As submitted by learned defence counsel

for remaining accused persons and as held above,
these confessions can not be made sole basis to
conclude the case unless corroborated generally. As
such let us scan the evidence and compare the
confessions with the rest of the evidence to decide
whether the facts disclosed by accused Balwant
Singh, Jagtar Singh Tara and Shamsher Singh leading
to the killing of Beant Singh, which is otherwise
admitted by Balwant Singh, are corroborated and
supported by the evidence led on the file.

552

(a) Confession of accused Balwant Singh

and its relevancy:

586. Applying the above settled propositions of
law to the facts in hand, first of all, let us take
the confession of accused Balwant Singh, Ex.PW65/F.
In this regard it comes out that for the sake of
repetition, accused Balwant Singh has confessed his
guilt in clear terms but he denied the making of
confession, Ex.PW65/F.

587. Accordingly, after considering the
evidence of the prosecution and the contention of
both the parties on this aspect, it comes out that
the prosecution has successfully proved that the
commission of the offence of killing of Beant Singh
by Balwant Singh and assasin Dilawar Singh, is as
per a conspiracy disclosed by Balwant Singh, in his
confession Ex.PW65/F, which is proved to be legally
and voluntarily made confession as per the
safeguards laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

588. The prosecution has led sufficient
evidence on the file which proves that the acts of
omission and commission, as disclosed by accused
Balwant Singh in his confessional statement are
duly proved on the file and established beyond
doubt that accused Balwant Singh, who was already
having an ill-will towards Beant Singh, became a
member of the conspiracy, which was hatched by

553

accused Jagtar Singh Hawara with the help of
absconding accused persons in one way or the other.

589. To prove the making of confession by this

accused, the material witness of the prosecution is
PW-65, Shri V . K . Maheshwari then Metropolitan
Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
Accordingly, when this witness stepped into the
witness box, he deposed that on the application of
CBI, Ex.PW65/C, then acting CMM vide his order
Ex.PW65/C-l, ordered him to record the confession
of accused Balwant Singh. Accordingly, accused
Balwant Singh was produced before him on 22.1.1996
and after taking the accused in his custody, all
the police officials were sent out of the Chamber
and after questioning the accused as per the
requirements of 164 Cr.P.C and after putting the
specific questions to the accused as mentioned in
the proceedings, Ex.PW65/D and Ex.PW65/E, he was
satisfied that the accused is going to make a
confession without any force or coercion, pressure,
inducement or threat. Not even this, he further
submitted that in order to ensure that there is no
undue pressure or threat to accused Balwant Singh,
he remanded him to judicial custody till 23.1.1996
and then after giving him sufficient time to think
over, he recorded his confession on 23.1.1996 once
again satisfying that accused Balwant Singh is
making the confession voluntarily without any force
or pressure, he recorded the confession of accused

554

Balwant Singh, Ex.PW65/F as per the facts disclosed
by accused Balwant Singh without any addition or
omission from his side.

590. He has categorically stated that before
recording the confession of accused Balwant Singh,
he did not find any mark of external or internal
injury on the person of Balwant Singh and he had
also explained to the accused that he is not bound
to make any confession and if he will make the
same, it can be used against him. He has further
deposed that after recording the confession,
Ex.PW65/F, he read over and explained the same to
the accused and after hearing and understanding his
statement, accused Balwant Singh put his signatures
on the each page. Needless to say before recording
the proceedings of the confession, he has
introduced himself to accused Balwant Singh and put
all the relevant questions provided under chapter
13 of High Court Rules & Orders, Volume 3.

591. After recording examination-in-chief of
this witness, opportunity to cross examine this
witness was granted to accused Balwant Singh, who
was conducting his trial himself, but he failed to
cross examine this witness despite due opportunity
being granted. As stated earlier, in State of HP
Vs. Thakur Dass , (supra) , the Hon'ble Himachal
Pradesh High Court reiterated the well settled
principle of law that when a statement made by a

555

witness on oath relating to some facts has not been
challenged in cross examination, the fact, in
question, must be held to be not disputed.

592. At the same time, this witness was cross
examined by the learned defence counsel for
remaining accused persons and despite incisive
cross-examination of this witness, the learned
defence counsel failed to point out any infirmity
or any other favourable thing to show that the
confession made by accused Balwant Singh was not
voluntarily made.

593. The learned defence counsels tried to
assail the statement of PW-65 mainly on two counts
firstly, that the confession has been recorded in
English and secondly, no legal aid was provided to
accused Balwant Singh before recording his
confession. However, none of these grounds are
sufficient to say that the confession recorded by
PW-65 is against the provisions of the law. PW-65
has categorically explained that accused Balwant
Singh disclosed that he is a graduate and he had
made the statement while using Hindi and English
words and he recorded the same in English and
explained the same to the accused in Hindi or
Punjabi. If it is so, this is no ground to discard
the confessional statement.

594. As far as the second plea is concerned,

556

while questioning accused Balwant Singh, PW-65 has
questioned him on all the material aspects as to
rule out the possibility of any torture, pressure,
promise or inducement by the CBI or the Police and
despite repeated questions, Balwant Singh disclosed
that he wants to tell the truth as he understood
all the implications of making of the confession
but still he wants to make confession. If it is so,
there is nothing on the file to say that the
confession of accused Balwant Singh is against the
procedural guidelines or the principles settled by
the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above.

594. On the contrary, it shows that the

confession of accused Balwant Singh is voluntarily
made confession giving all the facts and
circumstances under which this conspiracy was
hatched and executed and some of these facts were
so peculiar that it cannot be known to anybody else
except accused Balwant Singh.

595. No doubt, accused Balwant Singh has tried

to twist some facts as to the circumstances leading
to this conspiracy and the identity and the role of
remaining accused persons in this conspiracy but
this endeavour of accused Balwant Singh proves in
vain. To consider this aspect, the most important
factor which is apparent on the record is, that the
confession of accused Balwant Singh was recorded on
23-1-1996 and by that time all the remaining

557

accused persons of this trial, were already
arrested and accused Balwant Singh was knowing that
whatever he will disclose, the same would be used
against his co-accused persons also. As such, with
an intention to confuse the matter and to benefit
his co-accused persons, he intentionally twisted
certain facts so as to contradict the confessions
of the other accused persons. Otherwise the facts
disclosed by Balwant Singh are similar to the facts
disclosed by accused Jagtar Singh Tara. Thus, this
confession is a substantive evidence against
accused Balwant Singh to link him with this
conspiracy and is sufficient to convict him,
specially when he has already confessed his guilt.
At the same time, this confession can also be
pressed into service to lend assurance of the
circumstances brought on the file against the
remaining accused persons, as per the spirit of
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, which aspect
will be taken lateron.

(b) Confession of accused Jagtar Singh

Tara and its relevancy.

597. Now let us take the confession of accused

Jagtar Singh Tara, Ex.PW86/6. Before discussing the
evidence of prosecution witnesses on this point, it
will not be out of place to mention here that
during the trial, when Jagtar Singh Tara was
present and contesting the case, on 6.5.1999, he
moved an application and thereby retracted from his

558

confession, alleging that he had suffered this
confession under pressure and torture of the CBI
and the Punjab Police and no legal assistance was
given to him before recording his confession and as
such his confession is not voluntarily made and it
consists of false facts. However, while doing so,
he also admitted that he was associated with
deceased Dilawar Singh in killing S.Beant Singh,
who was the enemy of the Sikh community but the
manner in which it has been depicted in his
confession is not correct.

598. Not even this, even before that on

2.9.1998 and 3.9.1998 this accused filed two
different writings in his own hands, in which he
admitted that since he is also propounder of
Khalistan and thus, he, with the help of deceased
Dilawar Singh, had killed Beant Singh, who was
guilty of eliminating the innocent Sikhs and he has
no remorse and ready to face any punishment. But he
has not denied the making of confession in those
applications. If it is so, in view of these
writings, it comes out that, as submitted by
learned Public Prosecutor, there is no legal
retraction as per law. On the other hand, this
accused has also admitted his role and
participation in this conspiracy leading to killing
of S.Beant Singh, whereas accused Balwant Singh
while retracting from his confession alleged that
only he and deceased Dilawar Singh were involved

559

and no other person was involved. Thus, this fact
alone shows that it was not a case of conspiracy
involving accused Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh
only, but some more persons were the members of
this conspiracy, including accused Jagtar Singh
Tara and performed their part as alleged by the
prosecution .

599. With this background, let us consider the
evidence of prosecution to know whether the
confession made by accused Jagtar Singh Hawara is
legally made and voluntarily suffered confession as
per the requirement of the law and the guidelines
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned
above .

600. To prove the confession of accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara, the prosecution examined PW-86, Shri
Balbir Singh, then Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI
Court, Punjab at Patiala and this witness when
appeared in the witness box categorically deposed
that on 22.9.1995 accused Jagtar Singh Hawara was
produced in the court along with the request,
Ex.PW86/l for recording the confession of this
accused, as per his willingness. Accordingly, he
took the accused in his custody and asked him to
sit in the court and to think over and ordered that
his statement will be recorded at 3.00 p.m. This
order was passed by PW-86 at 12.00 p.m.

560

601. Accordingly, he further stated that at
3.00 p.m. he took up the matter and as per the
requirements of the law, he has explained to the
accused that he is a judicial Magistrate and that
the accused is not bound to make any confession and
if he will make the confession, it may be used
against him and after questioning the accused, he
was satisfied that the accused was free from any
pressure, threat or fear and he intends to make
confession of his own free will.

602. Not even this, he further stated that the
accused himself prayed that he wants to make the
confession without any pressure, threat as per his
writing, Ex.PW86/3 and thereafter he recorded the
confession of the accused as per the facts
disclosed by him without any omission or addition
which is Ex.PW86/6 and after recording the
confession, he gave certificate, Ex.PW86/5 and also
passed orders, Ex.PW86/2 and Ex.PW86/7 and
thereafter remanded the accused to judicial custody
as per his order Ex.PW86/ll. PW-86 has
categorically stated that when he recorded the
confession of accused Jagtar Singh Tara, no one
except he himself, his Reader and Steno-Typist , was
present in the court along with accused Jagtar
Singh Tara and no police official or CBI official,
APP or any other person was present.

604. Although, this witness was cross examined

561

by learned counsel for the other accused persons
but when opportunity to cross examine this witness
was granted to accused Jagtar Singh Tara, who was
present at that time and who was not taking the
help of any Advocate, alleging that he does not
want to contest this case as per his earlier
writings, he suggested to PW-86 that he had
requested him i.e PW-86 to provide him a counsel
but this fact was denied by PW-86. A suggestion
that the confession of accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
was recorded as per the questions and answer given
by Shri Raj an Malhotra, Special P.P. of the CBI
without putting the same to the accused and thereby
pressurized to suffer the confession, was denied by
PW-86 categorically. Not even this, another
suggestion was put to him that he has not recorded
the confession of the accused correctly and as per
the facts disclosed by him. It was during this
cross examination, when accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
moved the application dated 6.5.1999 retracting
from his confession.

605. Thus, the cross examination of this

witness clearly shows that there is nothing on the
file to say that the confession of Jagtar Singh
Hawara was recorded by PW-86 without satisfying
himself about the state of mind of Jagtar Singh
Hawara and without satisfying that he was under the
pressure and threat of the CBI. Not even this, this
witness was also cross examined by the learned

562

defence counsel for the other accused persons. But
apart from cross examining him on irrelevant
matters, nothing material comes out to say that the
confession of the accused is not recorded as per
the legal requirements and the guidelines. On the
contrary, PW-86 has reiterated that when the
accused was produced for the first time at 12.00
noon, he enquired from the accused as to his
willingness to make the confession and at that
time, no one was present in the court except
accused and the court staff.

605. Not even this, he has categorically
deposed that to ward-off the police pressure, if
any, he asked accused Jagtar Singh Tara to sit in
the court and to re-think. No doubt, it is admitted
by PW-86 that he has not questioned the accused as
to for how long he had been in the custody of the
CBI and the Police remand or that whether he
requires an Advocate. But this makes no difference
because as stated by PW-86, accused Jagtar Singh
Tara himself moved an application, Ex.PW86/3
wherein he submitted that he wants to tell
everything true about the murder of S.Beant Singh
and there is no pressure on him and he wants to
make a voluntary statement in this regard. As such,
this omission has no affect on the confession made
by the accused Jagtar Singh Tara.

606. As far as the plea of learned defence

563

counsel that sufficient time was not granted to the
accused before recording his confession is
concerned, as stated earlier, this aspect was
considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shankaria ' s
case (Supra) , where an interval of 15 minutes
between the preliminary questioning and recording
of confession was found sufficient and the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that how much time for reflection
should be allowed to an accused persons before
recording his confession is a question, which
depends on the circumstances of the each case. The
only object of giving such time for reflection to
the accused is to ensure that he is completely free
from Police influence and there is no statutory
provision for the same. But the only condition
precedent for recording a confession by the
Magistrate in the course of Police investigation is
that the Magistrate should not record any
confession unless upon questioning the accused
making it, he has reason to believe that it is
being made voluntarily. Thus, there is no force in
this plea to discard the statement of PW-86.

607. In view of above discussion, the testimony

of PW-86 remained unrebutted and clearly spells out
that as admitted by this accused, he was part and
parcel of this conspiracy and he had made a true
and voluntarily confession giving the details of
the conspiracy and the role of each of the accused
persons, which is admissible, not only against

564

accused Jagtar Singh Tara since proclaimed offender
for the purpose of Section 299 Cr.P.C, but it is
also admissible against the other accused persons
u/s 30 of the Evidence Act subject to the condition
that there must be broad and general corroboration
to the facts disclosed in the confession.

(c ) Confession of accused Shamsher Singh

and its relevancy.

608. Now let us take the confession of third
accused Shamsher Singh. This accused has suffered a
confession before PW-103, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, then
Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New
Delhi. Before taking the evidence of prosecution,
first of all, let us consider the two technical
objection raised by learned defence counsel in this
regard .

609. The first objection raised by learned
defence counsel is that it is admitted case of the
prosecution that in the first charge sheet filed
against accused Gurmeet Singh etc., the name of
this accused was also mentioned and if it was so,
the police was having no authority to further
investigate the case against this accused without
the permission of the court and as such all the
investigations made by the CBI against this accused
after submission of the first charge sheet and
taking of cognizance by the Sessions Court are
illegal and vitiate the trial against this accused

565

and any evidence collected during those
investigations cannot be read against the accused
and secondly, that the recording of confession by
PW-103 after filing of the charge sheet can not be
taken into consideration being not permissible
under the law as per the law laid down by Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court in Bachan Lai & Ram Sarup's
case (Supra) .

610. However, after going through the case law
relied upon by the prosecution and after
considering the facts & circumstances under which
accused Shamsher Singh was arrested and challaned,
it comes out that as submitted by learned Public
Prosecutors, both these objections are without any
legal basis and have no affect on the prosecution
of accused Shamsher Singh on the basis of
subseguent charge sheet.

611. In Shri Bhagwan Samardha's case (supra),

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when Police after
conducting the investigation submitted a final
report against an accused and the Magistrate had
taken the cognizance, it is open to Police to
conduct further investigation with the formal
permission of the court and the court has power to
do so even without hearing the accused on this
aspect .

612. Similar principle was reiterated by the

566

Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Vijay Kumar's case

(Supra) and by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Ravi Krindi Rama Swami ' s case (Supra).

However, the facts of the present case are totally
distinguishable because in the first charge sheet
submitted by the CBI, although the name of accused
Shamsher Singh was mentioned but he was shown as
absconder and no proceedings to declare him a
proclaimed offender were initiated and completed
and he was never charge sheeted with the other
accused persons. On the contrary, a perusal of the
record shows that after filing of the first charge
sheet, on 18.12.1995 it was disclosed by the
committed accused persons that accused Shamsher
Singh has been arrested by the Punjab Police and on
the basis of that information, this accused was
arrested by the CBI in the present case and after
conducting investigations against him, a
supplementary charge sheet was filed against him.

613. As such, neither there was a charge sheet

against this accused as per provision of Section
173 Cr.P.C nor any cognizance was taken against him
by any court. On the contrary, a perusal of the
first charge sheet shows that only five accused
persons namely Gurmeet Singh, Lakhwinder Singh,
Jagtar Singh @ Tara, Navjot Singh and Nasib Singh
were sent for trial. Whereas the name of accused
Shamsher Singh along with the other accused
persons, who were also absconding, was mentioned in

567

column no. 2, which is meant for name of the accused
persons, who have not been sent for trial. Thus by
no stretch of imagination, it can be said that
accused Shamsher Singh was already charge sheeted
and if it is so, the first plea proved in vain to
derive any benefit for accused Shamsher Singh.

614. Similarly, the second plea also becomes
redundant in view of the fact that once it is
proved that accused Shamsher Singh was never charge
sheeted in the first charge sheet as he was never
arrested and his role was never investigated nor
any trial was pending against him, the confession
recorded by PW-103 was during the investigation of
this case against this accused and not subsequent
to the closing of the investigation and the
submission of the charge sheet. Similarly, it is
also proved that no trial was commenced against
this accused either before committing Magistrate or
before the Court of Sessions. As such, this plea
also proves in vain and the case law relied upon by
the defence on this aspect is of no help to the
accused specially when perusal of the commitment
order dated 11.12.1995 of the then Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chandigarh shows that after considering
the charge sheet, he has committed the case to the
Court of Sessions only against five accused
persons, who were sent for trial.

615. Now, let us consider the confession of

568

accused Shamsher Singh on merits, as to whether it
is legally and voluntarily made and suffered.

616. To prove the confession of accused
Shamsher Singh, the prosecution has examined PW-
103, Dinesh Kumar, then Metropolitan Magistrate,
Patiala Courts House, New Delhi and this witness,
when appeared in the witness box categorically
deposed that on 15.12.1995, on the application of
the CBI, Ex.PW103/A and as per the orders of
A.C.M.M., Delhi, Ex.PW103/B, he took up the
proceedings for recording the confession of accused
Shamsher Singh on 16.12.1995, as on 15.12.1995
accused Shamsher Singh was not produced.

617. He further deposed that on 16.12.1995, at
around 11.30 a.m. accused Shamsher Singh was
produced before him and after sending everybody out
of the court, he explained to the accused that he
is not bound to make any confession and if he
choses to make confession, the same may be used
against him.

618. He further deposed that he also explained
to the accused that he is working as Metropolitan
Magistrate and the accused disclosed that he is
religious person and he wants to make a confession
to bring true facts on record giving his
explanation as mentioned in the proceedings,
Ex.PW103/D, saying that he is going to make the

569

confession without any coercion, undue influence or
threat and he (PW-103) was satisfied that the
accused is not under any pressure or threat or fear
and he intends to make confession of his own free
will .

619. As per PW-103, although he was satisfied

that there is no pressure on the accused, however
to ward-off any such pressure, or undue influence
etc., he asked the accused to sit in the court and
think over, saying that he will take up the matter
again at 3.00 p.m.

620. As per this witness, at about 3.35 p.m.,

he again took up the matter and as per the
requirements of the law, he again explained to the
accused that he is not bound to make any confession
and if he will make and then even if he retracts
from the same, it will be used against him and that
he will not be handed over to the CBI even if he
will not make any statement and thus again
questioned the accused and was satisfied that
accused is free from any pressure or influence and
after giving his opinion in this regard Ex.PW103/F,
he recorded the confessional statement of accused
Shamsher Singh running into 8 pages, Ex.PW103/G, as
per the facts disclosed by the accused without any
omission or addition. After recording the
confession, the same was read over & explained to
the accused and he signed it in token of its

570

correctness on all papers and he (PW-103) gave his
certificate, Ex.PW103/H.

621. He further deposed that after recording

his statement, the accused was remanded to
judicial custody with direction to the jail
authorities to produce him at Chandigarh on
18.12.1995, as per his order, Ex.PW103/K and
thereafter, after supplying the copies of
disclosure statement, he forwarded the proceedings
to CJM, Chandigarh through ACMM, Patiala House, New
Delhi .

622. During the cross examination of this

witness, a suggestion was put to him that
confession of accused Shamsher Singh has been
recorded by force and under the pressure of CBI but
it was denied by the witness.

623. Apart from this, he was also cross

examined incisively by the learned defence counsels
to allege that the confession of accused Shamsher
Singh was not a voluntarily made confession and not
recorded as per the legal requirements. However,
this endeavor of learned defence counsels proved in
vain, as the testimony of this witness remained
unrebutted and there is nothing on the file to say
that the confession of accused Shamsher Singh is
not recorded as per the requirement of law and same
is not voluntarily made confession.

571

624. Now let us take up the grounds put forward
by the learned defence counsel to challenge the
testimony of PW-103 consisting of some legal
objections and factual assertions based on the
cross examination of PW-103.

625. As far as the first plea of learned
defence counsel as to the circumstances, under
which the name of accused Shamsher Singh surfaced
in the investigation and before whom, is concerned,
this plea is without any basis because PW-248,
S.N.Saxena, Chief Investigating Officer of the
case, categorically explained that after the arrest
of accused Jagtar Singh Tara, he disclosed the name
of accused Shamsher Singh during his interrogation
but he could not be arrested as he was absconding
and later on when he came to know about the arrest
of the accused by the Punjab police, he instructed
PW-231, Rajesh Kumar, Inspector, CBI to arrest this
accused as he has been arrested by the Punjab
Police and was to be produced in the court of
Special Magistrate, CBI, Patiala. PW-231 has also
explained this fact. No doubt, as submitted by
learned defence counsel, in the disclosure
statement made by Jagtar Singh Tara, there is no
mention of the name of this accused and even in his
confession also but it makes no difference as it is
for the Investigating Officer to see as to how he
arrest the suspected accused. As such, this plea

572

proves in vain to raise any doubt as to the
identity of accused Shamsher Singh.

626. As far as the plea of learned defence
counsel that the arrest of this accused is also
doubtful and goes to show that he was already under
the custody of Punjab Police and was tortured and
forced to suffer this confession, is concerned,
again there is no force in this plea because it is
explained by PW-231 that as per the direction of
PW-248, he went to the court of Special Magistrate,
CBI, Patiala, where accused Shamsher Singh was
going to be produced and he filed an application
for taking the custody in this case. On his
application, the Special Magistrate, CBI, granted
him permission to arrest the said accused. During
the course of arguments, the learned defence
counsels have placed on the record copy of the
order of the Special Magistrate dated 11.12.1995,
which clarifies the entire issue.

627. A perusal of this order shows that when
accused Shamsher Singh was produced before the
court of SDM (sic SJM i.e. Special Judicial
Magistrate) , Patiala in some other case, on the
application moved by PW-231, the Special
Magistrate, CBI, permitted to arrest accused
Shamsher Singh in this case and thereafter he was
also remanded to police custody till 20.12.1995.
Thus, there is no confusion as far as the arrest of

573

this accused by the orders of the Special
Magistrate, CBI, is concerned, as stated by PW-
231, in his examination-in-chief and the word
Special Judicial Magistrate may be wrongly
mentioned as SDM, instead of SJM during his
statement because of similarity of pronunciation
and wording.

628. This fact is further clear from the cross
examination of PW-231 as in the first question, he
has categorically stated that the accused was
produced before the Special Judicial Magistrate,
CBI and thereafter the word Special Magistrate has
been mentioned as Sub Divisional Magistrate despite
the fact that the tone and the toner of PW-231 was
that all these proceedings were done by the Special
Judicial Magistrate, CBI and this fact is also
supported by the order of the Special Magistrate,
CBI, which is part of the record.

629. Not even this, during the course of
further cross examination of this witness, the
zimni regarding these proceedings was also shown to
the witness and in that zimni also, it is mentioned
that the accused has been arrested from the court
of Special Magistrate, Patiala and not from the
court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patiala as is
clear from the order dated 11.12.1995 which is part
of record. Thus, this confusion has been created
because of bona fide typographical mistake during

574

the cross examination of this witness. As such,
this plea also proves in vain to falsify the case
of the prosecution against this accused.

630. At the same time, it is admitted case of
the prosecution that this accused was already
arrested by the Punjab Police and there is no
evidence on the file to say that he was in the
illegal custody of the Punjab Police. If it is so,
there is no question of presuming that accused
Shamsher Singh was in illegal custody of Punjab
Police and the arrest of the accused is duly proved
to have been made on 11.12.1995. There is no
admission on the part of Chief Investigating
Officer regarding arrest of accused Shamsher Singh
since September, 1995 and the plea of accused
Shamsher Singh that he along with his brother and
family members was arrested in September, 1995 is
not supported by any evidence specially when it is
admitted case of the defence that this accused was
arrested only when they filed an application in
this regard before this Court.

631. On the contrary, it is proved that this
accused was arrested in FIR No. 127 of 1995 by the
Rajpura Police on 7.11.1995 along with other
accused of that case and thereafter he was arrested
in this case only when the CBI came to know about
his arrest by the Punjab Police. As such this plea
has no bearing on the defence of accused Shamsher

575

Singh .

632. Similarly, the plea of learned defence
counsel that the CBI should have taken the
production warrant of this accused instead of
arresting him from Patiala, so that he could be
produced before the Area Magistrate, where he would
have a right to defend himself, but this process
has been misused by the CBI just to deny the right
of legal aid to this accused, is also without any
basis and having no relevancy because the CBI was
also legally justified in arresting the accused
from Patiala after taking the permission of the
concerned court.

633. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Santosh Yadav's
case (Supra) , an authority relied upon by learned
defence counsel, the guestion before the Full
Bench was, whether production warrant requiring
attendance of prisoner lodged in judicial custody
in one case, can be issued for the purpose of
investigations in another case and this question
was answered in affirmative by the Full Bench. But
how this authority is relevant for this case, is a
fact, which is not clarified. As such, this plea
has also no relevancy.

634. Similarly, the plea of learned defence
counsel that no legal aid was provided to the
accused before recording his confession, is also

576

without any basis because at the time of recording
of confession, it is only the subjective
satisfaction of the recording Magistrate to assess
the mental state of affairs and the question of
legal assistance will arise only if the accused
alleged so, being an indigent person and it was in
these circumstances that the Hon'ble Gawahati High
Court in Dimba Kalita Vs. State of Assam, 1987(1)
Crimes, page 799, held that recording of a
confession of an indigent person without affording
him legal assistance can be fatal but in the
present case, there is nothing on the file to say
that the accused was an indigent person or that he
was not knowing his legal rights.

635. On the contrary, he was already in custody
in a criminal case and was arrested on 7.11.1995
whereas he was produced before the Special Judicial
Magistrate on 11.12.1995 and if it was so, then
there is no question of providing him any legal aid
by PW-103. Even, in the case relied upon by the
defence, the confession was held to be containing
exculpatory statement of causing death in right of
private defence and was held to be not a
confession. As such, this authority is of no help
to the accused.

636. As far as, the plea of learned defence
counsel that the accused was already in custody for
more than 3 months including the illegal custody

577

and as such, he was under the thumb and pressure of
the police and was forced to make the confession,
is concerned, there is no force in this plea
because as stated earlier, this accused was
arrested by the CBI in the present case only on
11.12.1995 and thereafter, he was taken to Delhi,
where he was interrogated and then produced before
the court of Judicial Magistrate on 15.12.1995
which means that he was in the police custody only
for 3 days i.e from 12.12.1995 to 14.12.1995 and
he expressed his desire to make the confession on
14.12.1995 itself and as such there was no
prolonged custody immediately preceding the making
of confession by this accused.

637. In Nathu Vs. State of UP, AIR 1956,
Supreme Court, Page 56, an authority relied upon by
learned defence counsel on this aspect, it was held
that a prolonged custody immediately preceding the
making of confession is sufficient to stamp it as
involuntary unless it is properly explained.
Similarly in Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab
(supra) , this very principle was also settled with
the findings that the unexplained prolong police
custody of the accused before making his
confession, makes it doubtful.

638. However, in this case, PW-103 has
categorically deposed that before recording the
confession, he was fully satisfied that there is no

578

pressure on the accused and only then he recorded
the same and if it is so, the apprehension of
learned defence counsel is not well founded and not
available to the defence.

639. PW-103 has categorically explained that

before recording the confession of the accused, he
has questioned him extensively about the state of
health of the accused, as to whether, he is under
pressure or fear or influence by anybody to make
confession; as to that if made it can be used
against him and he can not retract from the same;
as to the fact that he is working as Judicial
Magistrate and lastly gave him time of about four
hours to reconsider his desire of making the
confession and after doing all these proceedings,
as per his opinion, Ex.PW103/D and Ex.PW103/E, he
was fully satisfied that the accused is making the
confession voluntarily, without any pressure or
fear etc.

640. Thus both the authorities relied upon by

learned defence counsel on this plea are of no help
to the defence specially when in Sarwan's case
(Supra) , at the time of recording of confession by
the Magistrate, the accused showed some injuries
and yet the learned Magistrate did not enquire, how
the accused suffered those injuries and only half
an hour was given to him to rethink for making the
confession, that too, without questioning him to

579

know that he is free from any pressure, fear or
undue influence as per the requirement of Section
164 (3) . But in this case, these precautions have
been duly taken by PW-103.

641. The next plea raised by learned defence
counsel is that PW-103 has not explained to the
accused in black & white that he is a Judicial
Magistrate and thus the accused should have no fear
in telling the truth. As such, there is nothing on
the record to show that the accused was explained
that he is before a Magistrate and he should not
have any fear. Even in the entire proceedings of
this confession, consisting of 11 pages, it is
nowhere mentioned by PW-103 that he is a Judicial
Magistrate and he is conducting the proceedings, as
such. Even under his signatures and orders, he has
not mentioned his designation, which further shows
that the accused was never explained about this
fact and as such the entire proceedings of
recording of confession stand vitiated and makes
this confession inadmissible. In support of this
plea, he has relied upon Santana Badchat Vs. State
of Orrisa's case (Supra).

642. However, after going through the testimony
of PW-103 and the proceedings of the confession, it
comes out that no doubt in the proceedings, a
specific question in black & white has not been
recorded by PW-103, that he introduced himself to

580

the accused before starting the proceedings of
confession. But PW-103, when appeared in the
witness box, categorically deposed that when the
accused was produced before him in the court, he
explained him that he is working as Metropolitan
Magistrate and then questioned him about his state
of mind etc. and his willingness to make the
confession .

643. Thus, simply because of the fact that this
fact is not brought on record, in black & white, is
not sufficient to say that the accused was not
knowing that he is being produced before the
Magistrate, specially, when PW-103 has also stated
that the accused was produced in the court room and
after asking everybody to go out, he questioned the
accused. Thus, this is no ground to discard the
confession recorded by PW-103 or to say that it is
not voluntarily suffered.

644. The next plea on which the confession was
challenged by learned defence counsel was that in
Sarwan Singh's case (Supra), it was settled by the
Hon'ble High Court that in every case of recording
of confession, the Magistrate is required to put
the question prescribed under the High Court Rules
and Orders, as per the requirement of Sub Section 3
of Section 164 of the Cr.P.C and if those
prescribed questions have not been put to the
accused and the confession is recorded directly, it

581

makes the confession highly doubtful and
involuntary. This very principle was again
reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dagdu Vs.
State of Maharashtra, AIR, 1977, Supreme Court,
1579, and Ayub Vs. State of U.P's case (Supra) .

645. He further submitted that in the present
case, as is clear from the proceedings of the
confession, no question, what to talk of the
prescribed questions as per the High Court Rules &
Orders of Punjab & Haryana, has been put to the
accused Shamsher Singh by PW-103 before recording
his confession. As such, failure to comply with
Section 164 Sub Section (3) Cr.P.C, will render the
confession inadmissible.

646. However, after going through the case law
relied upon by both the parties on this aspect, it
comes out that as submitted by learned Public
Prosecutor, in the present case, PW-103 has
complied with the provisions of Section 164 Sub
Section 3 of the Cr.P.C by holding a preliminary
enquiry with an object to obtain an assurance of
the fact that the confession is not caused by
inducement, threat or promise or under force or
compulsion .

647. Above all, the High Court Rules & Orders
of Punjab & Haryana High Court are not applicable
in the State of Delhi nor any such Rules or

582

Directions, if issued, by the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court have been brought on record. At the same time
PW-103 has specifically deposed that before
recording the confession of the accused, he put
specific questions to the accused to know that the
accused is not under any threat, fear or pressure
to make the confession and that he was fully
knowing that the confession, if made, can be used
against him. In this regard as deposed by PW-103,
no doubt he has not conducted the preliminary
enquiry in question and answer form but as is clear
from the proceedings Ex.PW103/D, Ex.PW103/E and
Ex.PW103/F, he had incisively questioned the
accused and explained him that the accused was not
bound to make the confession and if he will make,
it can be against him and as to why he is going to
make the confession and that had there been any
pressure, threat, advise or inducement by the
Police to make the confession.

648. At the same time, during his testimony,

PW-103 has further deposed that in the application,
Ex.PW103/A, it was already mentioned that the
accused was arrested on 11.12.1995 and he was
produced before the A.C.M.M on 15.12.1995 and after
that he questioned the accused about the relevant
facts and also granted him a time of four hours to
re-consider his intention and even after that, he
again questioned the accused and when the accused
was fully prepared to make the confession without

583

any fear or compulsion and with his free will, the
same was recorded by him.

649. A perusal of the preliminary enquiry,
Ex.PW103/D and PW103/E, shows that the accused was
informed that he is not bound to make the
confession and if he will make, it will go against
him and why he is making the confession. It was
also mentioned that the accused was physically fit
and there was no apparent mark of injury on his
person and he had a good sleep on the night of
15.12.1995 and have his break fast.

650. Despite this, though PW-103 was satisfied
that the accused is mentally and physically fit and
going to make the confession voluntarily, a period
of four hours was given to the accused to
reconsider his desire. And after four hours, PW-103
has conducted a similar enquiry and even the
accused was explained that after making the
confession, he can not retract from the same and it
was also explained to him that he will not be
handed over to the CBI, even if he does not make
any statement. But he can not retract from the
confession, if made, but still the accused
expressed his desire to make the confession.

651. Thus, PW-103 was fully satisfied, as per
the precautions and guidelines laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, that accused is free from any

584

type of pressure, threat or inducement and if it is
so, both the authorities relied upon by the defence
are not applicable to the facts in hand because in
Dadgu's case (Supra), before recording the
confession of accused, the Magistrate made no
efforts to ascertain from the accused whether he is
making the confession voluntarily without any
inducement or threat by the Police and had not
granted any time to the accused for reflection and
on those facts, it was held that it is not true
compliance of Section 164 Sub Section (3) of the
Cr.P.C.

652. Similar were the facts in Sarwan ' s case

(Supra) , as mentioned above while considering the
affect of custody of the accused before his
confession. At the same time in Ayub ' s case
(Supra) , the confession involved was under the
provision of Section 15 of TADA Act, which stands
on different footing than a confession u/s 164
Cr.P.C and as such all the authorities are of no
help to the defence.

653. Similarly, a suggestion put to PW-103
that the accused was tortured and forced to make
the confession, was vehemently denied by the
witness, which shows that the plea of learned
defence counsel that the accused was tortured and
pressurized to suffer this confession is also
without any basis as no such plea was put forward

585

by the accused when he was questioned by PW-103 in
this regard.

654. In Vidya Wati Vs. State, AIR 1951,
Himachal Pradesh, page 82, the Hon'ble Himachal
Pardesh High Court held that where there is
evidence that the accused was tortured and forced
to make the confession, the same is not admissible
in evidence. However, in this case, there is no
such evidence. As such, this authority is no help
to the applicant.

655. One more plea raised by learned defence
counsel, to say that the confession of accused
Shamsher Singh was not voluntary, is that it is
admitted case of PW-103 that the accused disclosed
to him that he is going to suffer the confession
due to compulsion so that he might not be
implicated otherwise and it shows that the
confession of accused was not voluntarily but it
was under the compulsion and thus not reliable.
However, after going through the case law relied
upon by learned defence counsel on this aspect, it
comes out that this fact is not disclosed by the
accused in the sense interpreted by learned defence
counsels .

656. In Raja Khima Vs. State of Saurashtra ,
AIR, 1956, Supreme Court, page 217, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that "a confession can not be used

586

against an accused person unless the Court is
satisfied that it was voluntary and while the Court
is considering this guestion, the guestion whether
it is true or false does not arise. It is abhorrent
to notions of justice and fair play, and is also
dangerous to allow a man to be convicted on the
strength of a confession unless, it is made
voluntarily and unless he realises that anything he
says may be used against him and any attempt by a
person in authority to bully a person into making a
confession or any threat or coercion would at once
invalidate if it the fear was still operating on
his mind at the time he makes the confession and if
it would appear to him reasonable for supposing
that by making it he would gain any advantage or
avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to
the proceedings against him."

657. However, in the present case, a perusal of

the confession of accused Shamsher Singh shows that
he has nowhere stated that he is making the
confession under some compulsion or to avoid a big
evil of a temporal nature. On the contrary, he
disclosed that he is a religious person and he came
in contact with terrorists as he was also having
threat to his life from terrorist groups and
whatever he did in this case was under compulsion
and he wants to make a statement so that a true
story should come out, apprehending that otherwise
other witnesses may implicate him more seriously.

587

658. This fact clearly shows that what the
accused disclosed to the Magistrate was that he is
associated in this case in one manner or other but
it was due to some compulsion but as far as making
of confession is concerned, he discloses that he
wants to make the confession to bring the true
facts on the record so that his role should not be
multiplied by the other witnesses and thus by no
stretch of imagination, it can be said that the
accused was making the confession under some
compulsion or under belief that by making it he
would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of
temporal nature. Thus, the facts of the present
case are clearly distinguishable and the case law
relied upon is not applicable.

659. As far as the last resort of the learned
defence counsel that sufficient time was not
granted to the accused for reflection before
recording his confession which makes it
inadmissible and was rightly retracted by this
accused, is concerned, again there is no force in
this plea also because it is proved on the file
that PW-103 has given a time of four hours to
accused Shamsher Singh for reflection, which, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, was
sufficient and reasonable.

660. As to whether this is sufficient time or

588

not is concerned, as mentioned earlier, in
Shankaria's case (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
after considering the Sarwan Singh Vs. State of
Punjab's case (Supra), held that there is no
statutory provision in Section 164 of the Cr.P.C or
else where that there should be an interval of 24
hours or more, between the preliminary questioning
of the accused and recording of confession has the
only requirement of the law is that the Magistrate
not to record any confession unless upon
questioning the accused making it he has reason to
believe that it is being made voluntarily. And in
that case although a time of 15 minutes was given
to the accused to rethink, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that it is sufficient to see that the mind of
the accused was free from any possible influence of
the Police.

661. Similarly in Sarwan Singh's case (Supra,

the accused had visible marks of injury and he was
in the prolonged custody of the police, which was
also unexplained and the confession of the accused
was recorded immediately on his production, without
questioning him and without giving him adequate
time to reconsider and on those facts the same was
found to be doubtful but in this case, this aspect
has already been discussed and held to be not as
such. If it is so, there is nothing on the record
to show that PW-103 has committed any material
irregularity or violated the guidelines laid down

589

by the Hon'ble Apex Court before recording the
confession of accused Shamsher Singh which makes it
inadmissible in evidence. As such, this plea also
proves in vain to say that there is any flaw or
legal infirmity on the part of PW-103 in recording
the confession of accused Shamsher Singh.

662. In view of the above discussion, the

testimony of PW-103 remained unrebutted and clearly
spells out that as stated by PW-103, the confession
of accused Shamsher Singh, Ex.PW103/G is
voluntarily made giving the details of the
conspiracy and the role of the accused, which is
clearly admissible against accused Shamsher Singh
subject to the condition that there must be a broad
and general corroboration to the facts disclosed in
the confession, which will be taken up while
discussing the evidentiary value of the confession
of the accused persons.

663. Having thus reached a finding as to the

voluntary nature of confessions of all the three
above named accused persons, let us test the truth
of the confessions, as the fact that the
confessions have been made voluntary, free from
threat and inducement, cannot be regarded as
presumptive evidence of its truth. And there may be
circumstances to indicate that the confessions
cannot be true wholly or partly in which case it
looses much of its evidentiary value.

590

664. In order to be assured of the truth of

confessions, let us scan the entire evidence of the
prosecution and compare it with confessions and to
look for corroboration. But as far as the nature of
corroboration is concerned, as per the legal
position discussed above, specially in Subramania ' s
case supra, it should not be meticulous examination
of the entire material particulars and it is enough
that there is broad corroboration in conformity
with the general trend of the confession and taken
as a whole it fits into the the facts proved by the
evidence, even if it has been retracted later on.

665. In substance, the court should have

assurance from all angles that the retracted
confession was, in fact, voluntary and it must have
been true. But it does not necessarily mean that
each and every circumstance mentioned in the
confession regarding the complicity of the accused
must be separately and independently corroborated,
nor it is reguired that the corroboration must come
from the facts and circumstances discovered after
the confession was made.

666. Let us now scrutinise the evidence and

other facts and circumstances to lend assurance and
general corroboration to the truth of confessions.

667. Before considering the factual aspect of

591

the evidence let us consider the following legal
position as to certain legal issues.

1. What is relevancy of disclosures made
under section 27 of the Evidence Act and
its applicability to the facts of the
case and its extent;

2. Relevancy of extra judicial confession
and its evidentiary value;

3. Use of retracted confession against
the co-accused;

4 . The evidentiary value of the act &
conduct of accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
and Balwant Singh after commission of
this offence including discovery of their
abodes and hideouts along with its
identification and the recoveries made on
the basis of disclosures made by them;

5. The relevancy of identification of
accused persons by some of the witnesses,
on the basis of photo graphs shown to
them during the investigations, and then
their identification in the court.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT & ITS ADMISSIBILITY AS
PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 27 OF EVIDENCE
ACT.

668. As far as the interpretation of Section

27 of the Evidence Act is concerned, it has been
agitated by the learned defence counsel that all
the disclosure statements relied upon by the
prosecution are hit by the provisions of Section
27 of the Evidence Act as no material fact has been

592

discovered
statements
made by the

in consequences of these
even if those are presumed to
accused persons for a moment.

disclosure
have been

669. Whereas the contentions of prosecution are

that the expression 'Discovery of fact' should be
read with Section 3 of the Evidence Act which
includes recovery of plain mental fact concerning
the informant and not restricted to recovery of
material object as alleged by defence counsel.

670. As such, the controversy remains- Whether

the application of the Section is contingent on
the recovery of a physical object is the moot
question. Section 27 embodies the doctrine of
confirmation by subsequent events. The fact
investigated and found by the police consequent to
the information disclosed by the accused amounts to
confirmation of that piece of information. Only
that piece of information, which is distinctly
supported by confirmation, is rendered relevant and
admissible u/s 27.

671. The other question is the physical object

might have already been recovered, but the
investigating agency may not have any clue as to
the "state of things" that surrounded the physical
object. And in such an event, if upon the
disclosure made, such state of things or facts
within his knowledge in relation to a physical

593

object are discovered, whether then also, it can be
said to be discovery of fact within the meaning of
Section 27 .

672. The above said issues have been directly

considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State (NCT
of Delhi) Versus Navjot Sandhu, 2005, Crl. L.J. 3950

and the Hon'ble Apex Court taken into consideration
the entire case law held that : -

"The physical object might have already
been recovered, but the investigating
agency may not have any clue as to the
"state of things" that surrounded that
physical object. In such an event, if upon
the disclosure made such state of things
or facts within his knowledge in relation
to a physical object are discovered, then
also, it can be said to be discovery of
fact within the meaning of Section 27.

"The other aspect is that the
pointing out of a material object by the
accused himself is not necessary in order
to attribute the discovery to him. A
person who makes a disclosure may himself
lead the investigating officer to the
place where the object is concealed. That
is one clear instance of discovery of
fact. But the scope of Section 27 is
wider. Even if the accused does not point
out the place where the material object is
kept, the police, on the basis of
information furnished by him, may launch
an investigation which confirms the
information given by accused. Even in
such a case, the information furnished by
the accused becomes admissible against
him as per Section 27 provided the
correctness of information is confirmed

594

by a subsequent step in investigation. At
the same time, facts discovered as a
result of investigation should be such as
are directly relatable to the
information . "

"We have noticed above that the
confessions made to a police officer and a
confession made by any person while he
or she is in police custody can not be
proved against that person accused of an
offence. Of course, a confession made in
the immediate presence of a Magistrate can
be proved against him. So also Section 162
Cr.P.C bars the reception of any
statements made to a police officer in the
course of an investigation as evidence
against the accused person at any enquiry
or trial except to the extent that such
statements can be made use of by the

accused to contradict the witnesses. Such
confessions are excluded for the reason
that there is a grave risk of their
statements being involuntary and false.
Section 27, which unusually starts with
a proviso, lifts the ban against the
admissibility of the confession/statement
made to the police to a limited extent by
allowing proof of information of specified
nature furnished by the accused in police
custody. In that sense Section 27 is
considered to be an exception to the rules
embodied in Sections 25 and 2 6."

"The history of case law on the
subject of confessions under Section 27
unfolds divergent views and approaches .
The divergence was mainly on twin aspects :

(i) Whether the facts contemplated
by Section 27 are physical, material
objects or the mental facts of which the
accused giving the information could be
said to be aware of. Some Judges have gone
to the extent of holding that the

595

discovery of concrete facts, that is to
say material objects, which can be

exhibited in the Court are alone covered
by Section 27. (ii) The other controversy
was on the point regarding the extent of
admissibility of a disclosure statement.
In some cases a view was taken that any
information, which served to connect the
object with the offence charged, was
admissible under Section 27."

"The decision of the Privy Council in
Kotayya's case , AIR 1947 PC 67 which has
been described as a locus classicus had
set at rest much of the controversy that
centered round the interpretation of
Section 27. To a great extent the legal
position has got crystallized with the
rendering of this decision. The authority
of Privy Council's decision has not been
questioned in any of the decisions of
the highest Court either in the pre or
post independence era. Right from
1950s, till the advent of the new century
and till date, the passages in this famous
decision are being approvingly quoted and
reiterated by the Judges of this apex
Court. Yet, there remain certain grey
areas as demonstrated by the arguments
advanced on behalf of the State."

673. The Hon'ble Apex court then laid down the

requisite conditions of this dispute in following
manner :

"The first requisite condition for
utilizing Section 27 in support of the
prosecution case is that the investigating
police officer should depose that he
discovered a fact in consequence of the
information received from an accused

596

person in police custody. Thus, there must
be a discovery of fact not within the
knowledge of police officer as a
consequence of information received. Of
course, it is axiomatic that the
information or disclosure should be free
from any element of closure should be free
from any element of compulsion. The next
component of Section 27 relates to the
nature and extent of information that can
be proved. It is only so much of the
information as relates distinctly to the
fact thereby discovered that can be proved
and nothing more. It is explicitly
clarified in the Section that there is no
taboo against receiving such information
in evidence merely because it amounts to a
confession. At the same time, the last
clause makes it clear that it is not the
confessional part that is admissible but
it is only such information or part of it,
which relates distinctly to the fact
discovered by means of the information
furnished. Thus, the information conveyed
in the statement to Police ought to be
dissected if necessary so as to admit only
the information of the nature mentioned
in the Section. The rationale behind this
provision is that, if a fact is actually
discovered in consequence of the
information supplied, it affords some
guarantee that the information is true and
can therefore be safely allowed to be
admitted in evidence as an incriminating
factor against the accused."

674. Elucidating the scope of this Section, the

Privy Council also in Pulukuri Kottaya and others
Vs. Emperor, AIR, PC 18, also held that : -

"normally, the Section is brought into

597

operation when a person in police custody
produces from some place of concealment,
some object, such as a dead body, a weapon
or ornaments, said to be connected with
the crime of which the informant is the
accused . "

675. The material point to be noted is that the
Privy Council rejected the argument of the counsel
appearing for the Crown that the fact discovered is
the physical object produced and that any and every
information which relates distinctly to that
object can be proved. Upon this view, the
information given by a person that the weapon
produced is the one used by him in the commission
of the murder will be admissible in its entirety.

676. While defining the expression 'fact
discovered' their Lordships held that : -

"it is fallacious to treat the 'fact
discovered' within the section as
equivalent to the object produced; the
fact discovered embraces the place from
which the object is produced and the

knowledge of the accused as to this, and
the information given must relate

distinctly to this fact. Information as
to past user, or the past history, of the
object produced is hot related to its
discovery in the setting in which it is
discovered. Information supplied by a
person in custody that "I will produce a
knife concealed in the roof of my house"
does not lead to the discovery of the
fact that a knife is concealed in the
house of the informant to his knowledge,
and if the knife is proved to have been

598

used in the commission of the offence,
the fact discovered is very relevant. But
if to the statement the words be added
"with which I stabbed. A" these words are
inadmissible since they do not relate to
the discovery of the knife in the house
of the informant."

677. The Hon'ble Privy Council also explained
the probative force of the information made
admissible under Section 27 in the following
words : "

" Except in cases in which the

possession, or concealment, of an object
constitutes the gist of the offence
charged, it can seldom happen that
information relating to the discovery of a
fact forms the foundation of the
prosecution case. It is only one link in
the chain of proof, and the other links
must be forged in manner allowed by law."

678. In paragraph 11, their Lordships observed
that they were in agreement with the view taken by
the High Courts of Lahore and Bombay in Sukhan Vs.
Emperor (AIR 1929 Lahore 344) and Ganuchandra Vs.
Emperior (AIR 1932 Bombay 286) . The contrary view
taken by the Madras High Court in Attappa Goundan
Vs. Emperor (ILR 1937 Madras 695) was not accepted
by the Privy Council.

67 9. In Attappa Goundan 's case (supra), the

Hon'ble High Court held that part of the
confessional statement, which revealed the
connection between the objects produced and the

599

commission of
under Section
criticized by

murder was held
27 in its entirety,
the Privy Council.

to be admissible
This approach was

680. Similarly Hon'ble Madras High Court in
Emperor Vs. Ramanuja Ayyangar (AIR 1935 Madras
528), disagreed with the view taken in Sukhan ' s
case (supra) that the expression 'fact' in Section
27 should be restricted to material objects or
something which can be exhibited as material
object. It was held that the facts need not be
self -probatory and the word 'fact' as contemplated
by Section 27 is not limited to "actual physical
material object". Emphasis was laid on the wording
'any fact'. In this respect, the view taken in
Sukhan 's case (supra) was dissented from. The
minority view was that the discovery of a witness
to the crime or the fact of the accused in
purchasing the incriminating material can not be
proved by invoking Section 27.

681. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State Vs.
Navjot's case supra concluded that : -

"We are of the view that Kotayya's case is
an authority for the proposition that
'discovery of fact' can not be equated to
the object produced or found. It is more
than that. The discovery of fact arises by
reason of the fact that the information
given by the accused exhibited the
knowledge or the mental awareness of the
informant as to its existence at a

600

particular place."

"The crux of the ratio in Kotaya ' s case
was explained by this Court in State of
Maharashtra Vs. Damu. Thomas J. observed
that "the decision of the Privy Council in
Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. Emperor is the most
quoted authority for supporting the
interpretation that the "fact discovered:
envisaged in the section embraces the
place from which the object was produced,
the knowledge of the accused as to it, but
the information given must relate
distinctly to that effect".

682. Similarly in Mohmed Inayaltuallah Vs. The
State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 828) , while
clarifying that the expression "fact discovered" in
Section 27 is not restricted to a physical or
material fact which can be perceived by the senses,
and that it does include a mental fact, explained
the meaning by giving the gist of what was laid
down in Pulukuri Kotayya 's case. The Hon'ble Apex
Court held that : -

"Now it is fairly settled that the
expression "fact discovered" includes not
only the physical object produced, but
also the place from which it is produced
and the knowledge of the accused as to
this."

683. So also in Udai Bhan Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 1116) , after referring to
Kotayya ' s case the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the
legal position as follows :-

601

"A discovery of a fact includes the object
found, the place from which it is produced
and the knowledge of the accused as to
its existence."

684. There is almost a direct decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court on the point raised and disputed
by learnd defence councel and in which the
connotation of the expression "fact occurring in
Section 27 was explored and a view similar to
Sukhan's case was taken on the supposition that
the said view was approved by the Privy Council in
Kotayya's case.

685. That decision is Himachal Pradesh
Administration Vs. Om Prakash (1972) 1 SCC 24 9) .

In that case, on the basis of information furnished
by the accused to the Police Officer that he had
purchased the weapon from a witness and that he
would take the police to him, the Police went to
the Thari of PW11 where the accused pointed out
PW11 to the Police. It was contended on behalf of
the accused that the information that he purchased
the dagger from PW11 followed by his leading the
Police to the Thari and pointing him out was
inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
This argument was accepted. And it was held by
Hon'ble Apex Court that : -

"In our view there is force in this

602

contention. A fact discovered within the
meaning of Section 27 must refer to a
material fact to which the information
directly relates. In order to render the
information admissible the fact discovered
must be relevant and must have been such
that it constitutes the information
through which the discovery was made.
What is the fact discovered in this
case? Not the dagger but the dagger hid
under the stone which is not known to the
Police .

686. Not even this latestly the Hon'ble Apex

Court in An tar Singh Vs. State of Raj as than,
2004 (10) , SCC, 657 , again reconsidered the entire law
on this aspect summed up the legal principles as
follows : -

(1) The fact of which evidence is sought
to be given must be relevant to the
issue. It must be borne in mind that
the provision has nothing to do with
question of relevancy. The relevancy
of thefact discovered must be
established according to the
prescriptions relating to relevancy
of other evidence connecting it with
the crime in order to make the fact
discovered admissible.

(2) The fact must have been discovered.

603

(3) The discovery must have been in
consequence of some information
received from the accused and not by
accused's own act.

(4) The persons giving the information
must be accused of any offence.

(5) He must be in the custody of a
police officer.

(6) The discovery of a fact in
consequence of information received
from an accused in custody must be
deposed to.

(7) Thereupon only that portion of the
information which relates distinctly
or strictly to the fact.

687. Similarly the above settled principles of

law was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Geejaganda Somaiah Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in JT 2007 (4) SC, page 380 in the

following words : -

"For the applicability of Section 27 of
the Evidence Act two conditions are pre-
requisite, viz., (i) information must be
such as has caused discovery of the fact,
and (ii) the information must 'relate
distinctly' to the fact discovered. Under

604

Section 27 only so much of the information
as distinctly relates to the fact really
thereby discovered, is admissible. While
deciding the applicability of Section 27
of the Evidence Act, the Court has also to
keep in mind the nature of presumption
under illustration (a) to (s) of Section
114 of the Evidence Act. The court can,
therefore, presume the existence of a fact
which it thinks likely to have happened,
regard being had to the common course of
natural events, human conduct and public
and private business, in their relations
to the facts of the particular case."

ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION

688. As far as the legal position relating to

the relevancy of extra judicial confession and how
it is to be proved, is concerned, in State of
Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram,V (2003) SLT 45-111(2003)
CCR 189 (SC)-2003 8 SCC 180, it was held that

"An extra judicial confession, if
voluntary and true and made in a fit state
of mind, can be relied upon by the Court.
The confession will have to be proved like
any other fact. The value of the evidence
as to confession, like any other evidence,
depends upon the veracity of the witness
to whom it has been made. The value of the
evidence as to the confession depends on
the reliability of the witness who gives
the evidence. It is not open to any Court
to start with a presumption that extra
judicial confession is a weak type of
evidence. It would depend on the nature of
the circumstances, the tie when the
confession was made and the credibility of
the witnesses who speak to such a
confession. Such a confession can be

605

relied upon and conviction can be founded
thereon if the evidence about the
confession comes from the mouth of
witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not
even remotely inimical to the accused, and
i respect of whom nothing is brought out
which may tend to indicate that he may
have a motive of attributing an untruthful
statement to the accused, the words spoken
to by the witness are clear, unambiguous
and unmistakably convey that the accused
is the perpetrator of the crime and
nothing is omitted by the witness which
may militate against it. After subjecting
the evidence of the witness to a rigorous
test on the touchstone of credibility ,
the extra judicial confession can be the
basis of a conviction if it passes the
test of credibility."

It was further observed :

"20. If the evidence relating to extra
judicial confession is found credible
after being tested on the touchstone of
credibility and acceptability, it can
solely form the basis of conviction . The
requirement of corroboration as rightly
submitted by the learned Counsel for the
respondent-accused, is a matter of
prudence and not an invariable rule of
law"

68 9. In the case of Gagan Kanojia and Anr. Vs.

State of Punjab, IX (2006) SLT 406= (2007) CR 89
(SC)=Criminal Appeal Nos. 561-62 and 563 of 2005,

decided on 24.11.2006 , the Hon'ble Apex Court
opined :

"Extra- Judicial confession as is well

606

known, can form the basis of a conviction.
By way of abundant caution, however the
Court may look for some corroboration.
Extra judicial confession can not ipso
facto be termed to be tainted. An extra-
judicial confession, if made voluntarily
and proved can be relied upon by the
Courts . "

690. Similarly in Nazir Khan & Others Vs. State
of Delhi, V (2003) SLT 14-111 (2003) CCR 173
(SC)=106 (2003) DLT 70(SC)= 2003 8 SCC 461, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

"A free and voluntary confession is
deserving of the highest credit , because
it is presumed to flow from the highest
sense of guilty"

691. Similarly in State of Rajasthan Vs Kashi
Ram, 1 (2007) SLT 125=1 (2007) CCR 167 (SC)=2006
(11) SCALE 440, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
observed that:

"There was nothing to show that he had
reasons to confide in them. The evidence
appeared to be unnatural and
unbelievable. The Hon'ble Apex Court
observed that evidence of extra judicial
confession is a weak piece of evidence
and though it is possible to base a
conviction on the basis of an extra
judicial confession, the confessional
evidence must be proved like any other
fact and the value thereof depended upon
the veracity of the witnesses to whom it
was made . "

607

692. Similarly in Kishore Chand Vs.Himachal

Pradesh, AIR 1990 Supreme Court, page 2140 the

Hon'ble Apex Court again reiterated the same
principle and held as under:

"An unambiguous extra-judicial confession
assesses high probative value force as it
emanates from the person who committed
the crime and is admissible in evidence
provided is free from suspicion and
suggestion of its falsity. But in the
process of the proof of the alleged
confession the Court has to be satisfied
that it is a voluntary one and does not
appear to be result of inducement, threat
or promise envisaged under S.24 or was
brought about in suspicious circumstances
to circumstance Ss.25 and 26. Therefore,
the Court has to look into the
surrounding circumstances and to find
whether the extra judicial confession is
not inspired by any improper or
collateral consideration or circumvention
of the law suggesting that i may not be
true one. For this purpose the Court must
scrutinize all the relevant facts such as
the person to whom the confession is
made, the time and place of making it, the
circumstances in which it was made and
finally the actual words used by the
accused. Extra-judicial confession if
found to be voluntary can be relied upon
by the Court along with other evidence on
record. Therefore, even the extra
judicial confession will also have to be
proved like any other fact. Th value of
the evidence as to the confession depends
upon the veracity of the witness to whom
it is made and the circumstances in which
it came to be made and the actual words
used by the accused. Some times it may

608

not be possible to the witness to
reproduce the actual words in which the
confession was made. For that reason the
law insists on recording the statement by
a Judicial Magistrate after administering
all necessary warnings to the accused
that it would be used as evidence against
him."

6 93. Recently, in Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of

Punjab, II (2007) SLT 225=Criminal Appeal No. 675 of
2006. decided on 5.12.2006, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that:

"the evidentiary value of an extra
judicial confession must be judged in the
fact situation obtaining in each case. It
would depend not only on the nature of
the circumstances but also the time when
the confession had been made and the
credibility of the witness who testifies
thereto . "

694. The above discussed legal principles were
also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a most
recent case Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors Vs. State of
West Bengal CCR 2007 S.C, 391.

IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED BY
PHOTOGRAPHS DURING INVESTIGATIONS
AND THEN IN THE COURT AND ITS
RELEVANCY IN COURT, WHEN NO TEST
IDENTIFICATION IS CONDUCTED

695. As far as the principle as to the value of
the identification of a person on the basis of
photographs by a witness during the investigation

609

and then before the court, without there being a
test identification parade, is concerned, this
question is considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Malkhan Singh & others Vs . State of Madhya Pradesh

where the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that : -

"it is trite to say that the substantive
evidence is the evidence of identification
in court. Apart from the clear provisions
of section 9 of the Evidence Act, the
position in law is well settled by a
catena of decisions of this Court. The
facts, which establish the identity of the
accused persons, are relevant under
Section 9 of the Evidence Act. As a
general rule, the substantive evidence of
a witness is the statement made in court.
The evidence of mere identification of the
accused person at the trial for the first
time is from its very nature inherently of
a weak character. The purpose of a prior
test identification, therefore, is to test
and strengthen the trustworthiness of that
evidence. It is accordingly considered a
safe rule of prudence to generally look
for corroboration of the sworn testimony
of witnesses in court as to the identity
of the accused who are strangers to
them, in the form of earlier identification
proceedings. This rule of prudence,
however, is subject to exceptions, when,
for example, the court is impressed by a
particular witness on whose testimony it
can safely rely, without such or other
corroboration. The identification parades
belong to the stage of investigation, and
there is no provision in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, which obliges the
investigating agency to hold, or confers a
right upon the accused to claim, a test
identification parade. They do not
constitute substantive evidence and these

610

parades are essentially governed by
section 162 of the Code of Criminal
Pr4ocedure. Failure to hold a test
identification parade would not make
inadmissible the evidence of

identification in court. The weight to be
attached to such identification should be
a matter for the courts of fact."

696. Similarly in Suresh Chandra Bahri Vs.
State of Bihar, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 80: 1994 (3)RCR
(Cr) . (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that : -

"it is well settled that substantive
evidence of the witness is the evidence
in the court but when the accused person
is not previously known to the witness
concerned then identification of the
accused by the witness soon after his
arrest is of great importance because it
furnishes an assurance that the
investigation is proceedings on right
lines in addition to furnishing
corroboration of the evidence to be given
by the witness later in court at the
trial. From this point of view it is a
matter of great importance for the
investigating agency and for the accused
and a fortiori for the proper
administration of justice that such
identification is held without avoidable
and unreasonable delay after the arrest
of the accused. It is in adopting this
course alone that justice and fair play
can be assured both to the accused as
well as to the prosecution.

697. Thereafter the Hon'ble Apex Court further
observed : -

"But the position may be different when

611

the accused or a culprit who stands trial
had been seen not once but for quite a
number of times at different point of time
and places which fact may do away with the
necessity of a TI parade."

698. Similarly the Hon'ble apex Court in Umar
Abdul Shakur Versus Intelligence Officer, NCB, AIR
1999 SC, page 2562, the Hon'ble apex Court further
held that : -

"there is no legal provision which
inhibits the identification of an accused
by photo graphs and the law laid down by
the Hon'ble High Court in Kartar Singh
Vs. State of Punjab, 1994 Crl.Law
Journal, page 3139 which struck down
Section 20 of the TADA Act , 1987 was
also clarified that identification of an
accused only on the basis of photo graph
as provided u/s 22 of the TADA Act is bad
but if a witness appears in the witness
box during the trial and correctly
identify the accused then the court take
into consideration the fact that during
the investigations the photo graph of the
accused was shown to the witness and he
identified that person as the one whom he
saw at the relevant time and in those
cases the identification based on the
photo graphs when corroborated by
substantiated evidence makes it as
admissible in evidence."

699. Even in D. Gopal Krishanan Versus Sadanand
Nayak, AIR 2004, Supreme Court, page 4965, an

authority relied upon by the defence, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that : -

612

"there are no statutory guidelines in the
matter of showing photographs to the
witnesses during the stage of
investigation. But nevertheless, the
police is entitled to show photo graphs to
confirm whether the investigation is going
on in the right direction. During the
course of the investigation. If the
witness had given the identifying features
of the assailants, the same could be
confirmed by the Investigating Officer by
showing the photographs of the suspect and
the Investigating Officer shall not first
show a single photographs but should show
more than one photograph of the same
person, if available. If the suspect is
available for identification or for video
identification, the photo graph shall
never be shown to the witness in advance."

700. Similarly in Amit Singh Bhimamsing Thakur

Versus State of Maharashtra reported in 1 ( 2007)
Current Criminal Reports, Vol.1, page 221 (SC) ,

the Hon'ble Apex Court again reiterated that : -

"It is trite to say that the substantive
evidence is the evidence of identification
in Court. Apart from the clear provisions
of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the
position in law is well settled by a
catena of decisions of this Court. The
facts, which establish the identity of the
accused persons, are relevant under
Section 9 of the Evidence Act. As a
general rule, the substantive evidence of
a witness is the statement made in Court.
The evidence of mere identification of the
accused person at the trial for the first
time is from its very nature inherently of

613

a weak character. The purpose of a prior
test identification, therefore, is to test
and strengthen the trustworthiness of that
evidence. It is accordingly considered a
safe rule of prudence to generally look
for corroboration of the sworn testimony
of witnesses in Court as to the identity
of the accused who are strangers to them,
in the form of earlier identification
proceedings. Thus rule of prudence,
however, is subject to exceptions, when,
for example, the Court is impressed by a
particular witness on whose testimony it
can safely rely, without such or other
corroboration. The identification parades
belongs to the stage of investigation, and
there is no provision in the Code which
obliges the investigating agency to hold
or confers a right upon the accused to
claim, a test identification parade. They
do not constitute substantive evidence and
these parades are essentially governed by
Section 162 of the Code. Failure to hold a
test identification parade would not make
inadmissible the evidence of

identification in Court. The weight to be
attached to such identification should be
a matter for the Courts of fact. In
appropriate cases it may accept the
evidence of identification even without
insisting on corroboration."

701. Not even this in Laxmi Pat Choraria Versus

Stat of Maharashtra, AIR 1968, Supreme Court, page
938, an authority relied upon by the defence, the
Hon'ble Apex Court again while deciding the
question of identity by photo graphs of accused
persons held that : -

"Showing of a large number of a photo
graphs to the witness and asking him to

614

pick out that of the suspect is proper
procedure but showing a photo graph and
asking the witness whether it is the
offender is improper. And showing the
photo graph of the suspect before
identification makes the identification
worthless .

702. Similarly in Ravindra alias Ravi Bansi
Gohar Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998, Supreme
Court, 3031 it was settled that : -

"Identification parades are held
ordinarily at the instance of the
investigating officer for the purpose of
enabling the witnesses to identify either
the properties which are the subject
matter of alleged offence or the persons
who are alleged to have been invoked in
the offence. Such tests or parades, in
ordinary course, belong to investigation
stage and they serve to provide the
investigating authorities with material
to assure themselves if the investigation
is proceeding on right lines. In other
words, it is through these identification
parades that the investigating agency is
required to ascertain whether the persons
whom they suspect to have committed the
offence were the real culprits."

703. Similarly in Ramanbhai Naranhai Patel and
others Versus State of Gujarat (2000) 1 SCC, 358,

the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that:

"Failure to hold test identification
parade, which should be held with
reasonable despatch, does not make the
evidence of identification in Court

615

inadmissible rather the same is very much
admissible in law. Question is what is
its probative value ? Ordinarily
identification of an accused for the
first time in court by a witness should
not be relied upon, the same being from
its very nature, inherently of a weak
character, unless it is corroborated by
his previous identification in the test
identification parade or any other
evidence. The purpose of test
identification parade is to test the
observation, grasp, memory, capacity to
recapitulate what a witness has seen
earlier, strength or trustworthiness of
the evidence of identification of an
accused and to ascertain if it can be
used as reliable corroborative evidence
of the witness identifying the accused at
his trial in Court. If a witness
identifies the accused in court for the
first time, the probative value of such
uncorroborated evidence becomes minimal
so much so that it becomes, as a rule of
prudence and not law, unsafe to rely on
such a piece of evidence."

704. Similarly the Hon'ble Apex Court in case

of Mehtab Singh Vs State of M.P, 1975 (3) SCC, page
407, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

"No test identification parade is called
for and it would be waste of time to put
him up for identification if the victim
mentions name of the accused in the first
information report or he is known to the
prosecution witnesses from before.

7 05. Similarly in Sajjan Singh Versus Emperor,

616

AIR 1945 Lahore 48, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that :

"If an accused person is already well
known to the witnesses, an identification
parade would of course, be only a waste of
time. If, however, the witnesses claim to
have known the accused previously, while
the accused himself denies this, it is
difficult to see how the claim made by the
witnesses can be used as reason for
refusing to allow their claim to be put to
the only practical test. Even if the
denial of the accused is false no harm is
done and the valuer of the evidence given
by the witnesses may be increased. It is
true that it is by no means uncommon for
persons who have been absconding for a
long time to claim an identification
parade in the hope that their appearance
may have changed sufficiently for them to
scape recognition. Even so, this is not in
itself a good ground for refusing to allow
any sort of test to be carried out. It may
be that the witnesses may not be able to
identify a person whom they know by sight
owing to some change of appearance or even
to weakness of memory, but this is only
one of the facts along with many others,
such as the length of time that has
elapsed, which will have to be taken into
consideration in determining whether the
witnesses are telling the truth or not.

70 6. Not even this, in the case of Jadunath

Singh and another Versus The State of U.P. (1970) 3
SCC 518, a three Judges of Bench of the Hon'ble
High Court after referring to the many decisions
observed that : -

"It seems to us that it has been clearly
laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in

617

Parkash Chand Sogani Vs . The State of
Rajasthan (Supra) , that the absence of
test identification in all cases is not
fatal and if the accused persons is well-
known by sight it would be waste of time
to put him up for identification. Of
course if the prosecution fails to hold
an identification on the plea that the
witnesses already knew the accused well
and it transpires in the course of the
trial that the witnesses did not know the
accused previously, the prosecution would
run the risk of losing its case. It seems
to us that if there is any doubt in the
matter the prosecution should hold an
identification parade specially if an
accused says that the alleged eye
witnesses did not know him previously. It
may be that there is no express provision
in the Code of Criminal Procedure
enabling an accused to insist on
identification parade but if the accused
does make an application and that
application is turned down and it
transpires during the course of the trial
that the witnesses did not know the
accused previously, as pointed out above
the prosecution will, unless there is
some other evidence, run the risk of
losing the case of this point."

707. The Hon'ble Apex Court after referring to
the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution
came to the conclusion that as accused who was
known to the prosecution witness from before,
identification by witnesses in the court was not
affected on the ground that he was not known."

708. Similarly in Surendra Narain alias Munna

Pandey (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court after

618

observing the entire case law again observed that:

"On a perusal of the above rulings, it is
clear that the failure to hold the test
identification parade even after a demand
by the accused is not always fatal and it
is only one of the relevant factors to be
taken into consideration along with the
other evidence on record. In the claim of
the ocular witnesses that they knew the
accused already is found to be true, the
failure to hold a test identification
parade is inconsequential."

709. As far as the law relating to

identification of an accused for the first time in
the court without their being any corroboration
whatsoever and that it can form sole basis for the
conviction of an accused is concerned in Budh Sain
and another Vs. State of U.P, 1970(2) SCC, page
128, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that : -

"There are certain exceptions to the rule
that the identification of the accused for
the first time is not admissible as an
evidence and one of these exceptions is
that when the court is impressed by a
particular witness on whose testimony it
can safely rely without such or other
corroboration if that witness had any
particular reason to remember about the
identity of that accused and secondly
where the witness had a chance to interact
with the accused or that in a case where
the witness had an opportunity to notice
the distinctive features of the accused
which lends assurance to his testimony in
the court and in these circumstances, the

619

evidence of identification in court for
the first time by such a witness can not
be thrown away merely because no test
identification parade was held.

710. Lastly the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dana

Yadav alias Dahu and others Vs. State of Bihar, AIR
2002 Supreme Court, 3325, after considering the
entire case law and the matter in dispute laid down
the following principles :-

a) If an accused is well known to
the prosecution witnesses from
before, no test identification parade
is called for and it would be
meaningless and sheer waste of public
time to hold the same.

b) In cases where according to the
prosecution the accused is known to
the prosecution witnesses from
before, but the said fact is denied
by him and he challenges his identity
by the prosecution witnesses by
filing a petition for holding test
identification parade, a Court while
dealing with such a prayer, should
consider without holding a mini
inquiry as to whether the denial is
bona fide or a mere pretense and/or
made with an ulterior motive to delay
the investigation. In case Court
comes to the conclusion that the
dental is bona fide, it may accede to
the prayer, but if however, it is of
the view that the same is a mere
pretence and/or made with an ulterior
motive to delay the investigation,
question for grant of such a prayer
would not arise. Unjustified grant of
refusal of such a prayer would not

620

necessarily enure to the benefit of
either party nor the same would be
detrimental to their interest. In
case prayer is granted and test
identification parade s held in which
a witness fails to identify the
accused, his so-called claim that the
accused was known to him from before
and the evidence of identification in
Court should not be accepted. But in
case either prayer is not granted or
granted but no test identification
parade held, the same ipso facto can
not be a ground for throwing out
evidence of identification of an
accused in Court when evidence of the
witness, on the question of identity
of the accused from before, is found
to be credible. The main thrust
should be on answer to the question
as to whether evidence of a witness
in Court to the identity or the
accused from before is trustworthy or
not. In case the answer is in the
affirmative, the fact that prayer for
holding test identification parade
was rejected or although granted, but
no such parade was held, would not in
any manner affect the evidence
adduced in Court in relation to
identity of the accused. But if,
however, such an evidence is not free
from doubt, the same may be a
relevant material while appreciating
the evidence of identification
adduced in court.

c) Evidence of identification of an
accused in Court by a witness is
substantive evidence whereas that of
identification in test identification
parade is, though a primary evidence
but not substantive one, and the same
can be used only to corroborate
identification of accused by a

621

witness in Court.

d) Identification parades are held
during the course of investigation
ordinarily at the instance of
investigating agencies and should be
held with reasonable despatch for the
purpose of enabling the witnesses to
identify either the properties which
are subject matter of alleged offence
or the accused persons involved in
the offence so as to provide it with
materials to assure itself if the
investigation is proceeding on right
lines and the persons whom it
suspects to have committed the
offence were the real culprits.

e) Failure to hold test
identification parade does not make
the evidence of identification in
Court inadmissible rather the same is
very much admissible in law, but
ordinarily identification of an
accused by a witness for the first
time in Court should not from its
very nature inherently of a weak
character unless it is corroborated
by his previous identification in the
test identification parade is a check
valve to the evidence of
identification in Court of an accused
by a witness and the same is a rule
of circumstances only, as discussed
above, evidence of identification for
the first time in Court, without the
same being corroborated by previous
identification in the test
identification parade or any other
evidence, can form the basis of
conviction .

g) Ordinarily, if an accused is not
named in the first information
report, his identification by

622

witnesses in Court, should not be
relied upon, especially when they did
not disclose name of the accused
before the police, but to this
general rule there may be exceptions
as enumerated above."

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE
ABODES AND HIDEOUTS AND IDENTIFICATION OF
THE SAME VIS-A-VIS RECOVERIES MADE ON THE
BASIS OF DISCLOSURE OF ACCUSED PERSONS.

111. One of the material circumstances relied

upon by the prosecution, against accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara and Balwant Singh, to link them with
conspiracy and its execution, is that after the
commission of crime, both these accused persons
escaped and stayed at different places under
assumed names to conceal their identity and when
they were arrested, on the basis of disclosure
statement made by them, various incriminating
articles were recovered and they also identified
all those places, where they reside; from where
they made telephone calls and the places and the
shops from where they purchased the articles for
preparation of belt bomb and got stitched the belt
bomb and Police uniforms.

712. The evidentiary value of above facts was

considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Vs.
Navjot Sandhu's case (Supra), and it was held that
the act & conduct of the accused persons after the
commission of crime till their arrest relating to

623

the discovery of abodes or hideouts of the accused
persons, where they stayed and the recovery of
various incriminating articles therefrom and
identification of all those places is admissible in
evidence as their conduct under Section 8 of the
Evidence Act has close nexus with fact in issue.

713. This question was also considered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Parkash Chand Vs. State, AIR,
1979, Supreme Court, page 400, in the following
words : -

"There is a clear distinction between the
conduct of a person against whom an
offence is alleged, which is admissible
under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, if
such conduct is influenced by any fact in
issue or relevant fact and the statement
made to a Police Officer in the course of
an investigation which is hit by Section
162 Criminal Procedure Code. What is
excluded by Section 162 Criminal Procedure
Code is the statement made to a Police
Officer in the course of investigation and
not the evidence relating to the conduct
of an accused person (not amounting to a
statement) when confronted or questioned
by a Police Officer during the course of
an investigation. For example, the
evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter,
that an accused person led a police
officer and pointed out the place where
stolen articles or weapons which might
have been used in the commission of the
offence were found hidden, would be
admissible as conduct, under Section 8 of
the Evidence Act, irrespective of whether
any statement by the accused
contemporaneously with or antecedent to

624

such conduct fall within the purview of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act."

714. This very principle was also settled by

Hon'ble Apex Court in Himachal Pradesh
Administration Vs. Om Parkash, AIR 1972, Supreme
Court, page 972 (Supra), where the Hon'ble Apex
Court further held that : -

"Even apart from the admissibility of the
information under Section, the evidence of
the Investigating Officer and the Panchas
that the accused had taken them to PW 11
(from whom he purchased the weapon) and
pointed him out and as corroborated by PW
11 himself would be admissible under
Section 8 as 'conduct' of the accused."

715. Similarly in State Vs. Navjot Sandhu ' s

case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated this
proposition with the following observations : -

"We have already noticed the distinction
highlighted in Prakash Chand's case

(supra) between the conduct of an accused
which is admissible under Section 8 and
the statement made to a Police Officer in
the course of an investigation which is
hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. The evidence of
the circumstance, simplicitor, that the
accused pointed out to the police officer,
the place where stolen articles or weapons
used in the commission of the offence were
hidden, would be admissible as 'conduct'
under Section 8 irrespective of the fact
whether the statement made by the accused
contemporaneously with or antecedent to
such conduct, falls within the purview of
Section 27."

625

716. In the light of above discussed legal
proposition of law on various aspects involved in
this case, let the factual aspect of the case be
considered to conclude the entire matter.

717. Keeping into consideration the fact that
the case of prosecution is based on the different
acts played by the different accused persons at
different times but to achieve the same conspired
objective and in prosecution of their conspiracy
either jointly or in groups or individually, let us
now take the case each of the accused person, one
by one by as per the evidence alleged against him
to link him with the conspiracy and its execution.

THE CASE AGAINST DECEASED PI LA WAR SINGH

718. As held earlier, it is proved on the file
beyond any shadow of doubt that it was accused
Dilawar Singh, who being a 'Human Bomb' detonate
himself near deceased Beant Singh, killing him and
16 other persons. As such this fact itself proves
that he was part and parcel of this conspiracy.

719. At the same time, there are some more
circumstances which further fortifies the
connection of Dilawar Singh with this conspiracy.

720. First of all, PW-99 Chamkaur Singh, real

626

brother of Dilawar Singh, has deposed that on
31.8.1995, when Dilawar Singh and Balwant Singh
left his house, Dilawar Singh disclosed that he is
going to do a big task and PW-99 should run away.
He further deposed that he is fully satisfied that
his brother was involved in this conspiracy.

721. Secondly, when PW-237 searched the native
house of deceased Dilawar Singh at Guru Nanak
Nagar, Patiala, he found a book in Punjabi Article
P-119 along with two group photographs of Dilawar
Singh with two other accused persons and on the
last page of book P-119, there was a sketch of belt
mark X, which has been used by Dilawar Singh for
stitching belt. PW-85, G.D.Achint, an independent
witness, who was associated during the search of
house of Dilawar Singh also corroborated this
aspect and deposed that he was a member of the
police party which went to the house of Dilawar
Singh along with one more independent witness and
after breaking open the lock, when the search was
conducted, a book Article P-119 along with the
photograph of Dilawar Singh was recovered and taken
into possession vide memo Ex.P-85/1.

722. Thirdly, PW-79 has also identified the
photograph of Dilawar Singh, Mark XXXX as the
person, who accompanied Balwant Singh on 25.8.1995.
Similarly PW-76 also deposed that on 1.7.1995
accused Balwant Singh along with his companion

627

Dilawar Singh came to his shop for stitching of the
police uniforms and he noted their measurements on
the bill-cum-measurement book Ex.P-76/1 and the
carbon copy of that counter foil is Ex.P-76/l-A on
which he recorded the measurement. He further
deposed that on 3.7.1995 both of them came again
and took the delivery of the uniforms. He also
identified the photograph of deceased Dilawar Singh
Ex. PW-76/3 .

723. Fourthly, even accused Jagtar Singh Tara
(since proclaimed offender) in his confession
Ex.PW86/6 admitted that accused Dilawar Snigh was
part and parcel of this conspiracy and he acted as
a human bomb. All these facts are admissible
against Dilawar Singh, as per the provisions of
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, as these
have been further corroborated and supported by the
other circumstantial evidence brought on record.

724. Then we have the testimony of PW-51,
Surinder Shama, painter, who also deposed that
accused Lakhwinder Singh along with accused Balwant
Singh and Dilawar Singh came to his shop with the
car for the change of its colour to ^off-white' and
then from 26.8.1995 to 30.8.1995, they visited his
shop in that connection and he categorically
deposed and identified that accused Dilawar Singh
was one of the other person and he identified his
photographs and further deposed that on 2 9th and

628

30th August, 1995, it was accused Dilawar Singh and
Balwant Singh, who came to his shop to take the
delivery of the car. Then PW-114, Dalbir Singh
alias Maula also stated so. Besides this,
associations of deceased Dilawar Singh with the
other accused persons is also proved to link him
with the conspiracy from the evidence of PW-69, PW-
95, PW-102, PW-111, PW-113 and other witnesses.
Last but not the least, Balwant Singh accused in
his confession, Ex.PW-65/F as well as in the
various applications filed in the court during the
trial, admitted that Dilawar Singh was part and
parcel of this conspiracy and both of them
conspired together and killed deceased Beant Singh.

725. Thus from the above discussed evidence, it

is proved that deceased Dilawar Singh was part and
parcel of this conspiracy and he dared to act as a
human bomb and detonate himself and killed Beant
Singh along with 16 other innocent persons but
fully knowing that with kind of explosive device
and modes operandi, it was definite that loss of
life and property will be very extensive. However,
there is another side of this matter, which shows
that from the entire evidence of prosecution, it is
established that all the accused persons, who will
be found to have been involved in the conspiracy,
and helped each other to fulfill their common
object of killing of S. Beant Singh, will also be
liable for abetment and instigation which leads to

629

deceased Dilawar Singh to kill himself by working
as a human bomb, for which they are required to be
punished separately which will be decided after
completing the entire discussion on merits and
after knowing the involvement of all the accused in
this conspiracy.

THE CASE AGAINST ACCUSED BALWANT SINGH

726. While considering the involvement of
accused Balwant Singh, which is not otherwise
disputed by him, it would be expedient to consider
the case of accused Jagtar Singh Hawara also
because such a course will help to avoid the
repeating of evidence and would be advantageous as
the role of both these accused persons is co-
related and joint from the beginning till the
execution of the conspiracy and also thereafter
during their escape till their arrest.

727. Accordingly after considering the entire
evidence of prosecution on this aspect, it comes
out that, the prosecution has proved the following
circumstances against both accused Balwant Singh
and Jagtar Singh Hawara, which are sufficient to
say that they were part and parcel of this
conspiracy, which was initially made by them with
their co-accused deceased Dilawar Singh and was
further initiated by accused Jagtar Singh Tara and
then executed by them with the help of some more

630

accused persons and who they are, is the next point
for consideration.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . : 1 .

Confession before PW-65,

728. As far as, accused Balwant Singh is
concerned, as discussed and held earlier, this
accused had already confessed his guilt but he
denied making of the confession, Ex.PW65/F.
However, it is already held that the confession
made by accused Balwant Singh, Ex.PW65/F is true
and voluntarily made. As such, let us consider the
evidence of the prosecution concerning to this
accused, to know whether it is corroborated by the
evidence led by the prosecution and to see what is
the effect of retraction of confession by this
accused on its evidentiary value against him as
well as against the other accused persons, keeping
in view the principle of law discussed above.

729. Before taking evidence of prosecution on
this point let us consider the implications of
section 10 of Evidence Act as far as both these
accused persons are concerned. As per the
proposition of law discussed above, as far as the
application of Section 10 of the Evidence Act to
the case in hand is concerned, after scanning the
entire evidence of prosecution, it comes out that

631

the prosecution could not establish that after the
execution of the conspiracy, all the accused
persons continued to conspire with each other.

730. However, as far as accused Balwant Singh,
is concerned, even after commission of this crime,
when accused Balwant Singh escaped from Chandigarh,
he continued to have contacts with accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara and one of the absconding accused
Kuldip Singh & Ram Singh and both of them had
stayed together at some places in order to escape
arrest which shows that both of them remained in
touch with each other and further conspired to
avoid arrest.

731. As such, as far as accused Balwant Singh
and Jagtar Singh Hawara is concerned, the
confession made by accused Balwant Singh can be
taken into consideration as substantive evidence
even against accused Jagtar Singh Hawara also under
section 10 of the Evidence Act. However, as far as
the remaining accused persons are concerned, the
confession made by accused Balwant Singh, Shamsher
Singh and Jagtar Singh Tara cannot be treated as
substantive evidence against them as per the
proposition of law conclued in State Vs. Navjot
Sandhu ' s case supra .

732. In this regard in State of Maharashtra
Vs. Damu V (2000) S.L.T.194 the Hon'ble Apex Court

632

while taking into consideration the law laid down
in State of Gujarat Vs. Mohd. Atik's case (supra)

held that what the accused have spoken to each
other in reference to their conspiracy, as could be
gathered from the confessions of the co-accused,
can be regarded as relevant facts falling within
the purview of Section 10 of the Evidence Act and
the same can be used to ascertain what was said or
done or written between the conspirators for a
limited purpose. This very principle was also
reiterated in State Vs. Nalini's case (supra).

733. Thus, the conclusion on the above score is

that the confessional statement made by an accused
after his arrest, if admissible and reliable, can
be used against confessor as substantive evidence
but its use against the other accused would be
limited only for the purpose of corroboration of
other evidence, as per the provision of Section 30
of Evidence Act and it can also be used to lend
assurance to other evidence against the co-accused.

734. The other principle which comes out from

the legal proposition, mentioned above, is that
even a retracted confession can be made basis to
convict a person, provided, it was true and was
voluntarily made and has been corroborated on
general facts, as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Parmanand Pegu's case (supra). Keeping in view
the above settled law, let us conside the evidence

633

adduced by prosecution and compare the same with
the confession of accused Balwant Singh to
conclude that it is true and not retracted legally
as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
court in Shankaria's case (supra).

735. As stated earlier the making of confession

by Balwant Singh is proved to be in favour of
prosecution. At the same time, accused Balwant
Singh has admitted his guilt and killing of Beant
Singh in conspiracy with deceased Dilawar Singh. As
far as the retraction is concerned, the accused
Balwant Singh moved an application on 20.2.1996 and
alleged that he never made the said confession
either to the CBI or before any Magistrate.
However, it is proved that the copy of challan is
already with this accused in the year 1995 itself
but he never moved an application for retraction
before the Committing Magistrate or thereafter when
the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

736. Even otherwise, while retracting from the

confession, he has no where alleged that any
inducement, threat or pressure was made to get that
confession and also what are the reasons, what to
talk of justifiable reasons and how it is supported
by any circumstance, which must be a material one,
specially when it settled law that time is essence
to do so.

634

737. At the same time, despite opportunity

being granted, the accused Balwant Singh failed to
cross examine PW-65, Mr .V.K.Maheshwari,

Metropolitan Magistrate, who has recorded his
confession and who has categorically stated that
before recording the confession of accused Balwant
Singh, he was fully satisfied that he is going to
make the confession without any pressure, threat,
inducement, torture etc. As such no valid ground
exists to retract from the same and when it is
corroborated generally and broadly. Even the cross
examination of this witness by the counsel for the
other accused person could not elicit anything
favorable to say that the confession is not true
and voluntarily made.

738. Above all, the confession of guilt made by

accused in this case itself shows that this
assassination is not possible by Balwant Singh and
deceased Dilawar Singh alone, except as per a
planned conspiracy involving many more person as
admitted by accused Jagtar Singh Tara including
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and if it is so, the
facts disclosed by accused Balwant Singh in his
confession is voluntarily made and there is no
legal retraction in the eyes of law. On the
contrary, it comes out that the only intention on
the part of Balwant Singh while doing so was to
help his co-accused.

635

739. Even the legality and correctness of the
confession has not been disputed by Balwant Singh
by not cross examining PW-65. Even when question
no. 249 and 250 was put to the accused Balwant Singh
regarding making of confession, Ex.PW65/F,he
alleged that he do not remember, whereas later on
in answer to question no. 253 he admitted that in
his confessional statement, Ex.PW65/F, he disclosed
that he had adopted Jaswant Singh and his daughter
Kamaldeep Kaur as his father and sister and this
fact goes to show that this accused had suffered
the confession.

740. In Shankaria Vs. State of Rajasthan's case
(Supra). It was settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that where the accused, while retracting his
confession, did not say that he was tutored by the
Police to make confession nor he gave any
explanation and the confession shows that there was
nothing improbable or unbelievable in the same, on
the contrary, the same is appeared to be
spontaneous, containing all the details about the
manner of the commission of crime, which only the
perpetrator of the crime could know and lastly the
confession is further corroborated in several
material particular from reliable circumstantial
evidence, it is admissible and sufficient to bring
home the charge to the accused. This very
proposition of law was again reiterated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu

636

and others V(2000) S.L.T. 194.

741. Accordingly in the present case, the
further perusal of the evidence of prosecution
shows that when the facts stated in the confession
were compared with the evidence, in the light of
surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the
case, the confession seems to be a probable list of
events and it proves the previous act & conduct of
accused Balwant Singh leading to planning of
conspiracy, its preparation and its execution and
it also proves the subsequent act of the accused
during the time, he remained escaped and stayed at
various places and the same is also corroborated by
the extra judicial confession suffered by him and
there is nothing improbable or unbelievable and it
also appears to be spontaneous account, giving
vivid details about the manner of commission of the
crimes in question, which only the perpetrator of
the crime could know. Thus, it is substantive
evidence against accused Balwant Singh and it is
also duly corroborated and thus this confession is
sufficient alone, to convict him.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO. 2. :

Confession before the court.

742. The next and the foremost circumstance,
which itself is sufficient to convict the accused
Balwant Singh, is his confession made before this

637

court on several occasions as discussed above in
different parts of this judgement, and which proves
beyond doubt that deceased Beant Singh was killed
by deceased Dilawar Singh by acting as Suicide
bomber in conspiracy with accused Balwant Singh and
Jagtar Singh Hawara and the other accused and no
evidence is required to rely upon this
circumstance, specially when this accused has
further admitted that the facts disclosed by him to
PW-95, Tejinder Singh and as stated on oath by him,
are correct as far as his and role of other accused
persons is concerned.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 3 :

Association of accused Balwant Singh and
Jagtar Singh Hawara with other accused
persons including accused assassin Dilawar
Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Jagtar Singh Tar a
and Gurmit Singh.

743. The next circumstance which goes to

corroborate the facts stated in the confession by
accused Balwant Singh, is his association with the
other accused persons, which is also a material
fact and which will also be a circumstance against
other accused persons also. As such, the discussion
of this aspect is being done to see the association
of all the accused persons with each other and its
importance and link with the conspiracy.

638

744. In this regard, it is undisputed case of
accused Balwant Singh that he joined Punjab Police
in the year 1997 and lastly he was a gunman
attached with Bhushan Sirhandi, a Press Reporter of
a Hindi Daily. Even PW-62, C.Sukhwinder Singh, who
has brought the service file of accused Balwant
Singh, Ex.PW62/A, has also proved the appointment
and last posting of accused Balwant Singh as
gunman with Bhushan Sirhandi, a Press Reporter as
per the order, copy of which is, Ex.PW62/C.

745. Although, during his statement u/s 313
Cr.P.C, he denied this fact but in view of the
testimony of PW-62, C. Sukhwinder Singh and PW-60,
Raju Tamir Haran, grandson of Bhushan Sirhandi,
this fact is proved and the accused Balwant Singh
has not cross examined him to refute this fact, on
the contrary, he gave a writing, Ex. CD/1, in his
own hand writing, saying that whatever has been
stated by PW-60, is correct.

746. As per PW-60, accused Balwant Singh, was
working as gunman with his maternal grand father,
Bhushan Sirhandi and he used to remain on duty from
morning to evening. He also deposed that accused
Balwant was having a scooter, Ex,P77. He further
deposed that he also know deceased Dilawar Singh,
who was a friend of Balwant and used to visit him
in their office and he also identified the
photograph Of Dilawar, mark YY, YY/1 to YY/5.

639

747. Not even this, when questions number 76 to
79 in this regard were put to accused Balwant
Singh, he admitted that he had been attached as
Gunman with Bhushan Sirhandi for many years and
protected him as a member of family and he again
confessed the killing of Beant Singh and also
stated that whatever has been stated by PW-60 in
the court is correct.

748. At the same time in answer to question
No. 31 and 32, the accused Balwant Singh also
admitted that as stated by PW-99, Chamkaur Singh
brother of deceased Dilawar Singh, he was a friend
of Dilawar Singh. Even otherwise it is undisputed
admission of accused Balwant Singh that he and
deceased Dilawar Singh were involved in this blast.

749. Although, Balwant Singh has denied his
association with accused Lakhwinder Singh and
Gurmeet Singh, being residents of same locality of
the same city and being old friends and school
mates but this fact is not disputed by the other
accused persons and which is further corroborated
by witnesses PW-54, Deepinder Mehta, PW-95,
Tejinder Pal Singh, PW-113, Surinder Kumar, PW-114,
Dalbir Singh @ Maul la, PW-69, Madanjit Singh @
Channa and this aspect is also proved in view of
the testimony of PW-99.

640

750. Not even this PW-102, Kuljeet Singh, who
is an old friend of accused Balwant Singh, as he
had also joined in G.R.P. at Patiala, also deposed
that he was also knowing all other friends of
Balwant Singh including accused Gurmeet Singh, PW-
95, Tejinder Pal Singh and some other friends named
by him. He further deposed that on 01.09.1995 at
about 9.05 a.m., accused Balwant Singh came to his
quarter. He was clean shaven at that time and was
perplexed and when he questioned him, accused
Balwant Singh disclosed him that he and his
companions had killed Beant Singh, when Dilawar
Singh, acting as a human bomb, detonated himself
near the Beant Singh and accused Jagtar Singh Tara
had drove Dilawar Singh in an Ambassador car to
Civil Secretariat and that car had remained parked
there as the person who had to drive away the car
had fallen ill. He also disclosed that RDX has been
procured from Pakistan through Jagtar Singh Hawara
and Gurmeet Singh had helped them in manufacturing
the bomb .

751. One more material witness of the
prosecution on this aspect is PW-95, Tejinder Pal
Singh, who is an old friend of accused Balwant
Singh, being the resident of same Guru Nanak Colony
and being his child-hood friend and he accordingly
deposed that accused Balwant Singh is his child-
hood friend and he knows him and his friends
including deceased Dilawar Singh, Lakhwinder Singh

641

and Gurmeet Singh, who were also identified by him
in the court.

752. After that he deposed that as and when he
came to Patiala on his vacations, he used to meet
accused Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh and even in
the month of July, 1993 both of them visited him at
Nagpur and stayed with him where he was residing
along with his other friends including PW-94,
Gurpreet Singh and all of them had gone to Nanded
Sahib and Panchmari etc.

753. He further deposed that in June, 1995,
when he was at Patiala, he met Balwant Singh and
deceased Dilawar Singh as well as Deepinder Mehta,
another friend of all of them. He also deposed that
while leaving Patiala, he went to the house of
Balwant Singh, where accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
was also present and accused Balwant Singh
introduced him with him.

754. He further deposed that on 2.9.1995
accused Balwant Singh reached at their house at
Nagpur and disclosed him that on 31.8.1995, he,
Gurmeet Singh, Dilawar Singh, Lakhwinder Singh,
Jagtar Singh and other companions had assassinated
Beant Singh, Chief Minister, Punjab in the Civil
Secretariat in which Dilawar Singh had served as a
human bomb .

642

755. He further deposed that accused Balwant
Singh further stated that the belt bomb was
prepared in the room of Gurmeet Singh and an
Ambassador car, which was arranged by accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara and his companions from Delhi,
was used to reach the Secretariat, by repainting
the same into white colour from the friend of
Lakhwinder Singh at Chandigarh and on reaching
Secretariat, he wrote a Poem for Dilawar Singh. Not
even this, accused Balwant Singh also disclosed to
them that this assassination was plotted and
engineered at the instance of Wadhawa Singh and
Mehal Singh.

756. Not even this in view of testimony of PW-
213, Karamjit Singh and PW-214, Santokh Singh, it
is also proved that the accused Gurmeet Singh was
also a close friend of deceased Dilawar Singh and
Lakhwinder Singh. Similarly testimony of PW-69,
Madanjit Singh @ China further proved that the
deceased Dilawar Singh was also close friend of
Lakhwinder Singh as he was working as Special
Police Officer in Punjab Police.

757. Not even this, the prosecution has also
examined another witness, PW-111, Mohan Pal,
resident of Ratuali Village in Himachal Pardesh,
who deposed that at one point of time, deceased
Dilawar Singh, accused Lakhwinder Singh and Balwant
Singh came to his village and stayed together in

643

June, 1995 and even PW-113, Surinder Kumar has
corroborated this fact. Even PW-114, Dalbir Singh @
Maulla has also corroborated this version.

758. Even PW-159, Gurbachan Singh deposed that
accused Dilawar Singh used to visit Lakhwinder
Singh and they used to take liguor together. PW-62
C.Sukhwinder Pal Singh, who was also in Punjab
Police and who was in the Security of CM also
deposed that accused Lakhwinder Singh was working
as Munshi in the Security Wing of Punjab Police on
31.8.1995 and he was clean shaven and deceased
Dilawar Singh was the friend of Lakhwinder Singh.
Not even this when guestion No. 10 was put to
accused Lakhwinder Singh and Gurmit Singh in this
regard, they admitted it.

759. All these witnesses have also identified
all these accused persons in the court and also
identified their photographs. Since all these
witnesses were knowing these accused persons
personally, as such their identification of the
accused persons in the court is a material evidence
even if we ignore the identity by way of
photographs .

760. One more fact, which is material at this
stage is that during or prior to the conspiracy,
accused Lakhwinder Singh was clean shaven whereas
accused Balwant Singh was not having hairs but was

644

having a French cut beard and later on, both of
them become baptised Sikhs but despite this, they
were identified by the witnesses.

761. All these witnesses were duly cross

examined by learned defence counsels with a
explanation that they are procured witnesses and
deposed falsely, as even for a moment, it is
believed that accused Lakhwinder Singh, Gurmit
Singh and Dilawar Singh were known to each other
being residents of same locality and city, this
alone cannot be made basis to say that they were
part and parcel of this conspiracy.

762. But after going through the testimony of

all these witnesses, coupled with other facts and
circumstances, it comes out that, no doubt, the
stand of all these witnesses regarding the
association of all of them with each other is
admittedly not parse sufficient to say that they
were also members of this conspiracy but it also
goes to show that since accused Balwant Singh and
deceased Dilawar Singh were old friends and were
known to each other and were having confidence in
each other thus conspired together and later on,
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara also associated himself
with them with a obvious motive to use all of them
to fulfill his motive to kill Beant Singh. But
whether the association of other accused person
with them was a consideration for conspiracy, will

645

be seen after the entire evidence.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 4 :

Meeting of Balwant Singh with absconding
accused Ear jit Singh and Jagtar Singh
Hawara .

763. Accused Balwant Singh in his confession,
Ex.PW65/F disclosed that in the month of
March/April, 1995, his old friend Harjit Singh, who
is now settled in USA, and who is also accused in
this conspiracy but absconding, came to India and
met him and discussed with him about the atrocities
committed by the Punjab police on the innocent
persons on the instigation of Beant Singh the then
Chief Minister, Punjab and who also decided to kill
Beant Singh and Balwant Singh offered his services
to do so provided necessary in puts are made
available to him and on this, Harjit Singh assured
all help to him for this task and Balwant Singh
gave the telephone number of Bhushan Sirhindi for
future contacts in this regard.

764. Thereafter sometime in early June 1995
Harjit Singh rang up Balwant Singh on the telephone
of Bhushan Sirhindi, which was attended by PW-60,
Raju Tamir Haran and told him that Balwant Singh
should contact him for some work and Raju Tamir
Haran passed on this message to Balwant Singh, who
went to Delhi and met accused Harjit Singh alias

646

Mini Bawa.

765. No doubt, there is no direct evidence on
the file to prove the factum of meeting of Balwant
Singh with Harjit Singh at his house at Patiala but
the remaining story is duly proved on the file from
the testimony of PW-60, Raju Tamir Haran, who
deposed that during the posting of Balwant singh
with his maternal grandfather, accused Balwant
Singh used to have a Scooter, Ex.P77 and he further
deposed that about 2-3 months prior to incident in
question, he attended a telephone call for Balwant
Singh and the caller identified himself as uncle of
Balwant Singh ad asked him to convey a message to
Balwant Singh that he (Balwant Singh) should meet
him at Gurudwara Seesh Ganj at New Delhi and on the
next morning he conveyed this message to Balwant
Singh .

766. He further deposed that after this Balwant
Singh left for Delhi saying PW-60, that he is going
to Delhi for getting his passport. As stated
earlier, this witness has not been cross examined
by accused Balwant Singh on this aspect. On the
contrary, as per his writing Ex. CD/1, he admitted
that whatever has been stated by PW-60 is correct.
Above all even after the incisive cross examination
by the defence counsels, his testimony remained
unrebutted, specially when he has deposed only
against accused Balwant, who admitted his version

647

as correct.

767. In addition to this PW-124, Jasbir Singh,
Clerk of Gurudwara Seesh Ganj of Delhi and PW-125,
Dalbir Singh, Sewadar of above Gurudwara deposed
that on 19.6.1995 one Manjinder Singh along with
other two persons stayed in room no. 37 in the
Gurudwara .

768. In addition to this accused Balwant Singh
disclosed that when he went to Gurudwara Seesh
Ganj, he met accused Manjinder Singh @ Bawaji, who
took him to Surya Hotel, where he was introduced
with accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and all of them
discussed the plan to kill Beant Singh.

769. This fact is also proved on the file in
view of testimony of PW-132, Vinod Kumar, Manager
of the Surya Guest House, who when appeared in the
witness box categorically deposed that on
23.6.1995, as per the entry Ex.PW132/7-A in the
guest register, Ex.PW132/7, one Manjinder Singh
stayed in their Hotel from 9.25 a.m to 1.00 a.m and
at that time he was accompanied by another Sikh
young man, who was later on identified by him as
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara.

770. He further deposed that after some time
another person, who was having small beard, visited
Manjinder Singh, who was later on identified as

648

Balwant Singh. This witness further deposed that
when CBI questioned him about this and some
photographs were shown to him, out of those
photographs, he had identified the photo graph,
Ex.PW132/l of accused Jagtar Singh Hawara,
Ex.PW/132/2 of accused Balwant Singh and
Ex.PW/132/3 of Manjinder Singh. During his
testimony before the court he has also identified
both these accused persons in the court.

771. Much has been argued by learned defence
counsel as to the identity of accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara and Balwant Singh by this witness after
seeing the photographs, without conducting a test
identification parade from this witness, during the
investigations, alleging that this identification
is no identification in the eyes of law as per the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmi
Pat Choraria Vs . State of Maharashtra ' s case
(Supra) .

772. However, after considering rival
contentions, it comes our that the entire law as to
the identification of the accused on the basis of
photo graphs by the witnesses has already been
discussed and it has been laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Laxmi Pat's case (Supra), that
showing of large number of photographs to the
witness and asking him to pick out that of the
suspect is a proper procedure but showing a single

649

photograph and asking a witness whether it is of
offender is improper, even if that suspect is later
on identified by the witness.

7 73. However, later on in Dana Yadav Vs. State

of Bihar's case (Supra) as mentioned earlier, this
position is further clarified and it was held that
even if no test identification parade was
conducted, it itself is not a ground for throwing
out the evidence of identification of the accused
in court, when evidence of witness on this point is
credible because the evidence of identity of an
accused in the court is substantive evidence
whereas identity during the test identification
parade is not.

774. Even in a case where the witness has

identified an accused for the first time in the
court, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it can be
relied upon if it is proved that the witness has
the occasion to see the accused and to interact
with him and in this regard in Budh Sen Vs. State
of U.P's case (Supra), the Hon'ble apex Court laid
down that when the court is impressed by a
particular witness in whose testimony it can safely
rely upon, without such other corroboration; if
that witness had any particular reason to remember
about the identity of that accused and where the
witness had chance to interact with a accused or
where the witness has an opportunity to notice the

650

distinctive features of the accused, which leads to
the assurance to his testimony in the court, such
an identification can be relied upon even without
any test identification parade.

775. Similarly in a case of similar facts and

circumstances based on conspiracy and

circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Laxmi Raj Shetty Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1988
Cr.L.J. 1783 held that even when a witness
identifies an accused for the first time in the
court without any prior identification parade, such
identification is admissible in evidence, where it
is proved that such a witness had seen the
photograph of the accused during the investigations
and identified him to be the person involved.

77 6. Similarly in D.Gopal Krishanan's case

(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is
no statutory guidelines in the matter of showing
photographs to the witnesses during the stage of
investigations. However, during the course of
investigations, the police is entitled to show
photographs to confirm whether investigation is
going in the right direction and this can even be
done by showing more than one photograph of the
same person or suspect to the witness but if the
suspect is available for identification or video
identification, the photograph shall never be shown
to the witness in advance.

651

777. Accordingly, in the present case, PW-132
has categorically stated that when the police
visited his Hotel, some photographs were shown to
him to identify the person, who stayed in the Hotel
and from those photographs, he identified the three
photographs of Manjinder Singh, Balwant Singh and
Jagtar Singh Hawara Ex.PW132/l to Ex.PW132/3. He
has also identified accused Balwant Singh and
Jagtar Singh Hawara in the court during his
testimony and there is nothing in the record to
show that photographs of these accused were shown
to the witness prior to this testimony.

778. On the contrary, he identified these
accused persons of his own and thereafter he also
deposed about the identity of these accused on the
basis of these photographs during the
investigation. But by no stretch of imagination, it
can be said that he identified the accused in the
court only after seeing the photographs on that
date .

779. On the contrary, during his cross
examination, he deposed that about 12 to 15
photographs were shown to me and he further stated
that the name of both these accused were already
disclosed to him in January, 1996 and by that time
neither accused Balwant Singh nor Jagtar Singh
Hawara were arrested and as such there was no

652

question of arranging the test identification
parade of them from this witness or the other
witnesses, who were associated in this regard.
Thus, the testimony of this witness is reliable on
the identity of both these accused persons as no
motive or enmity has been shown qua this witness to
depose against the accused persons.

780. Not even this in Umar Abdul Shakur Vs.

Intelligence Officer's case (Supra), the Hon'ble

Apex Court further held that there are no statutory
guidelines or legal provisions in the matter of
showing photographs to the witnesses during the
stage of investigations and the identification of
accused by photographs and while clarifying the
provisions of Section 22 of the TADA Act, which
permits the identity of the accused through
photographs, it was held that this provision is bad
but if the witness appears in the witness box
during the trial and correctly identify the accused
then that identification can be considered and if
it is further corroborated by some evidence, the
same is admissible in evidence.

782. Similarly, in the present case, the

identity of the accused persons by PW-132, in the
court after seeing the photographs in the year
1996, is admissible even if no test identification
parade was conducted as it was not possible at that
time. Thus this plea of learned defence counsel is

653

without any basis.

783. The next meeting which took place between
accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara was
at the residence of Balwant Singh in Rattan Nagar,
Patiala, some where in the first week of July,
1995, where they finalized the plan to kill S.Beant
Singh with a human bomb as it was very difficult to
kill him otherwise and later on both of them along
with Dilawar Singh finalized this plan to kill
Beant Singh with a human bomb. This fact is also
duly disclosed by accused Balwant Singh in his
confession Ex.PW-65/F, which is already held to be
proved and voluntarily made.

784. In view of the above discussed legal and
factual position, it is proved that accused Balwant
Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara met in Surya Guest
House, Delhi and hatched a final conspiracy to kill
Beant Singh with the help of a human bomb and
discussed the security arrangements of Beant Singh
and also the modalities to assassinate him and
accused Balwant Singh offered the services of
deceased Dilawar Singh in this regard and Dilawar
Singh also agreed to do so, which further shows
that the facts disclosed by accused Balwant Singh
in his confession, Ex.PW65/F, in this regard are
correct and true and duly corroborated from the
evidence .

654

CIRCUMSTANCE NO. 5

Act and conduct of accused Balwant Singh
and Jagtar Singh Hawara during the
preparations made by them and
Identification of places from where
accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh
Hawara others purchased various items used
for the preparation of the belt bomb and
for the purpose of execution of the
conspiracy .

785. As stated by Balwant Singh in his
confession, it is further proved on the file that
as per their plan, accused Balwant Singh and
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara made various
preparations to fulfill their object.

786. In this regard, it is categorically
deposed by PW-75 Jasbir Singh, who was having a
tailoring shop in the A. C. Market, Patiala in the
name and style of M/s Stitch Co. that he was
knowing Balwant Singh, who used to visit him being
a Punjab Police Constable and on 24.8.1995 accused
Balwant Singh along with one more person, who was
later on identified as accused Jagtar Singh Hawara,
came to his shop and asked him to stitch a cloth
belt alleging that the same is reguired for the
mother of Jagtar Singh Hawara, who has undergone
for an operation, for keeping a hot water bottle
with her body.

787. As per this witness after that, accused

655

Jagtar Singh Hawara prepared a diagram of the
proposed cloth belt and he also ordered for
stitching of two pants for which he had purchased
the cloth from his shop and he took the measurement
of Jagtar Singh Hawara and noted the same in the
measurement bill-book Ex.PW-75/A, carbon copy of
which is Ex. PW-75/A-1 .

788. He further deposed that as requested by
the accused persons, he stitched the cloth belt and
one pant on the same day as asked by them but they
did not come to collect the same. Later on
25.8.1995 accused Balwant Singh came to his shop
along with a clean shaven man and took the delivery
of the one belt and a pant and ordered for
stitching of one more belt for him and he selected
green colour for the belt.

789. Accordingly he took the measurement of
accused Balwant Singh and recorded the same in the
same measurement slip Ex.PW-75/A-l on its right
hand side and he also ordered for one pant for
which he noted the measurement Ex . PW-75/A-2 .

790. He further deposed that he also stapled a
sample of the cloth of the pant and belt with the
same paper. Later on 27.8.1995 accused Balwant
Singh along with Jagtar Singh Hawara came to his
shop and took the delivery of one pant and one
cloth belt. He also identified the green belt as

656

Article, Ex.P-97 and deposed that it is the same
belt which was stitched by him and delivered to
Balwant Singh.

7 91. He further deposed that when the CBI came

to his shop, some photographs were shown to him and
out of those photographs, he identified the
photograph of Balwant Singh, Ex.PW-75/D and signed
the same and also identified the photographs Mark
WWWW and Mark WWWW/1 of the other person, who was a
Kesh Dhari i.e. a Sikh gentleman and who had come
with Balwant Singh, on 24.8.1995 and 27.8.1995. Not
even this, he has reiterated that on the asking of
the CBI, he had prepared the diagram of the belt on
a paper and handed over to the CBI which is Ex.PW-
75/C.

792. He further deposed that on 24.1.1996 he
identified accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, who was in
the custody of the CBI and whose photograph he
identified as mark WWWW/1. Not even this, he has
also identified accused Jagtar Singh Hawara in the
court as the same person who had visited his shop
with accused Balwant Singh on 24.8.1995 and
27.8.1995. He also identified the photograph of
other person, who had accompanied accused Balwant
Singh on 25.8.1995, as mark XXXX bearing his
signatures Ex.PW-75/F.

793. During cross examination, he has denied

657

the suggestion of the learned defence counsel that
he is deposing falsely on the asking of the CBI .
When he was confronted about the hand writing of
the copy of the diagram Ex.PW-75/C, he admitted
that it contains his handwriting as all the words
mentioned therein. As such the testimony of this
witness remained unrebutted and there is nothing on
the record to disbelieve him.

794. Similarly, PW-76 Amarjit Singh, another
tailor master of Patiala, also deposed that he is
running a tailoring shop in Tripuri Town, Patiala
and knows accused Balwant Singh for more than 8-10
years. After identifying him in the court, he
further deposed that on 1.7.1995 accused Balwant
Singh along with his companion Dilawar Singh, came
to his shop and asked for stitching of a Police
uniform as he was also earlier used to stitch the
same for Balwant Singh.

795. He further deposed that accordingly he
took the measurement of both the accused persons on
the bill-cum-measurement book Ex.PW-76/1 and as per
the counter foil number 775, Ex.PW76/l-A, he noted
the measurement of both the accused persons under
their name one by one and later, on 3.7.1995 they
took the delivery. After that, after about 10-15
days, accused Balwant Singh came and ordered for 5
more police uniforms of his size and after 4-5
days, he took the delivery of those uniforms.

658

7 96. He further deposed that he handed over the

bill-cum-measurement book to the CBI and also
identified the photograph of Dilawar Singh mark PW-
76/3 and put his signatures as Ex.PW-76/4, in the
token of identification of the same.

797. As usual accused Balwant Singh has failed
to cross examine both these witnesses despite
opportunity being granted, as such as held in
State of HP Vs. Thakur Dass ' s case (supra) the

stand of both these witnesses remained unrebutted.
Even despite incisive cross examination of both
these witnesses, by learned defence councel for
other acuused persons, the testimony of both these
witnesses, as to the visit of Balwant Singh and
Jagtar Singh Hawara to their shop for the above
mentioned work along with the identity of both of
them remained unrebutted. Again no motive or enmity
has been attributed qua them to depose falsely
against these accused persons.

798. It is already held that the identity of
accused persons by both these witnesses in the
court, is duly admissible in evidence, specially
when both these witnesses were already knowing
accused Balwant Singh and specially when PW-75
stated that the other accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
visited his shop two times and he noted his
measurement and thus was having sufficient reasons

659

to identify him. At the same time as stated earlier
PW-76 has also identified accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara during the investigations and also through
photographs .

799. Thus in view of the testimony of both
these witnesses, it is held that both accused
Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara got stitched
two belts, one of which was used by deceased
Dilawar Singh as a belt bomb and the other one is
Ex.P-97 which has been recovered from the dickey of
the scooter of Balwant Singh and identified by PW-
75 in the court, and police uniforms which they
used for the commission of the crime i.e. to enter
the Secretariat Building posing themselves to be
police officials.

800. As per accused Balwant Singh, after
preparing the belt bomb by Jagtar Singh Hawara in
his room, when the same was shown to Dilawar Singh
on 27.8.1995, they have decided to add some more
splinters in the bomb to make it more lethal and
for that, they went to the shop of a kabari in the
Kabari Bazar and purchased some splinters and
filled the same in the bomb. After that they also
purchased a 9 bolt battery and a switch etc. for
the circuit of the bomb. And this fact is also
proved on the file with cogent reliable evidence.

801. Accordingly in the present case PW-248

660

S.N.Saxena, the Chief Investigating officer of this
case, who has arrested the accused Balwant Singh,
deposed that on 14.1.1996 after the arrest of this
accused, he obtained the police remand and handed
over the accused to PW-247.

802. According, PW-247 deposed that during the
investigations he interrogated the accused Balwant
Singh, who suffered two separate disclosure
statements Ex.PW247/3 and Ex.PW247/4, in the
presence of PW-212, Balwant Singh s/o Masha Singh,
an independent witness from Patiala, disclosing
that as per the plan prepared by him to kill Beant
Singh, he purchased necessary articles to prepare
the belt bomb including the ball bearings, a nine
bolt battery, the cloth to make the belt got
stitched from the tailor in the AC market and he
can identify those shops.

803. Similarly, he also disclosed that they got
stitched some police uniforms to gain entry in the
Secretariat from a Tailor of Patiala and he can
identify that shop. He also disclosed that on
28.8.1995 he along with Dilawar Singh took a taxi
from Patiala and reached Mohali and he can identify
that Maruti Van and the taxi stand.

804. Similarly, PW-247 further deposed that on
20.1.1996, accused Balwant Singh took the police
party to Patiala and reached at the taxi stand on

661

the Maal road near Capital Cinema, Patiala and
identified the same but he could not found the blue
Maruti van, which was used by him to reach Mohali
and a pointing out memo of this fact Ex.PW212/l was
prepared. Thereafter, accused Balwant Singh took
the Police party to Dhrampura Bazar and pointed out
the shop of Arora Electronics from where he
purchased the electrical articles, a switch etc and
a pointing out memo Ex.PW212/3 was prepared.

805. He further deposed that thereafter accused
Balwant Sigh took the police party to AC market,
Adalat Bazar, patiala and pointed out the shop of
tailor master from where he got the three pants
stitched and Jasbir singh, proprietor of this shop
also identified accused Balwant Singh and confirmed
this fact and a pointing out memo, Ex.PW75/B was
prepared in this regard and the bill book of the
tailor master was also taken into possession along
with the cash memo.

806. This fact is also corroborated by PW-75
Jasbir Singh on all material aspects and he further
deposed hat on the asking of the Police, he
prepared the rough sketch of the belts stitched by
him, Ex.PW75/C and hand over the same to the Police
and also identified the photographs of accused
Jagtar Singh hawara and Dilawar Singh.

807. As Per PW-247 thereafter, accused Balwant

662

Singh took the police party in a shop in the Kabari
market, from where he purchased the splinters etc
and a pointing out memo Ex.PW212/2 was prepared in
the presence of owner of the shop and PW-212.
Thereafter accused Balwant Singh led the police
party to Tripari Town, Patiala and pointed out the
shop from where Police uniforms were got stitched
and the owner of that shop PW-7 6, Amarjit Singh
also confirmed this fact and identified the accused
Balwant Singh and a pointing out memo, Ex.PW-76/2
was prepared and the bill book, Ex.PW76/A along
with the relevant cash memo, Ex.PW76/l-A was also
taken into possession vide the same memo. This fact
is duly proved on the file by PW-212, who
corroborated the stand of the CBI in this regard.

808. PW-247 further deposed that after that the

accused was brought to Chandigarh, where he pointed
out the shop of PW-51, Surinder Sharma, from where
car, DBA-9598 was got repainted.

At the same time despite opportunity
being granted, accused Balwant Singh has not cross
examined this witness. If it is so, as per the law
laid down in State of HP Vs. Thakur Dass's case
(Supra) , the testimony of this witness remained
unrebutted .

80 9. Much has been argued by the learned

defence counsel as to the admissibility the facts

663

stated by these witnesses alleging that these
pointing out memos are not within the definition of
discovery of material facts as requried under
section 27 of evidence act.

810. The above said issues have been directly

considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in state (NCT
of Delhi) Versus Navjot Sandhu, 2005, Crl. L.J. 3950

and the Hon'ble Apex Court taken into consideration
the entire case law held that : -

"The physical object might have already
been recovered, but the investigating
agency may not have any clue as to the
"state of things" that surrounded that
physical object. In such an event, if upon
the disclosure made such state of things
or facts within his knowledge in relation
to a physical object are discovered, then
also, it can be said to be discovery of
fact within the meaning of Section 27.

"The other aspect is that the
pointing out of a material object by the
accused himself is not necessary in order
to attribute the discovery to him. A
person who makes a disclosure may himself
lead the investigating officer to the
place where the object is concealed. That
is one clear instance of discovery of
fact. But the scope of Section 27 is
wider. Even if the accused does not point
out the place where the material object is
kept, the police, on the basis of
information furnished by him, may launch
an investigation which confirms the
information given by accused. Even in
such a case, the information furnished by
the accused becomes admissible against

664

him as per Section 27 provided the
correctness of information is confirmed
by a subsequent step in investigation. At
the same time, facts discovered as a
result of investigation should be such as
are directly relatable to the
information . "

"We have noticed above that the
confessions made to a police officer and a
confession made by any person while he
or she is in police custody can not be
proved against that person accused of an
offence. Of course, a confession made in
the immediate presence of a Magistrate can
be proved against him. So also Section 162
Cr.P.C bars the reception of any
statements made to a police officer in the
course of an investigation as evidence
against the accused person at any enquiry
or trial except to the extent that such
statements can be made use of by the

accused to contradict the witnesses. Such
confessions are excluded for the reason
that there is a grave risk of their
statements being involuntary and false.
Section 27, which unusually starts with
a proviso, lifts the ban against the
admissibility of the confession/statement
made to the police to a limited extent by
allowing proof of information of specified
nature furnished by the accused in police
custody. In that sense Section 27 is
considered to be an exception to the rules
embodied in Sections 25 and 2 6."

"The history of case law on the
subject of confessions under Section 27
unfolds divergent views and approaches .
The divergence was mainly on twin aspects :

1 . Whether the facts contemplated
by Section 27 are physical, material
objects or the mental facts of which
the accused giving the information

665

could be said to be aware of. Some
Judges have gone to the extent of
holding that the discovery of
concrete facts, that is to say
material objects, which can be
exhibited in the Court are alone
covered by Section 27.
2 . The other controversy was on the
point regarding the extent of
admissibility of a disclosure
statement. In some cases a view was
taken that any information, which
served to connect the object with the
offence charged, was admissible under
Section 27."

"The decision of the Privy Council in
Kotayya's case , AIR 1947 PC 67 which has
been described as a locus classicus had
set at rest much of the controversy that
centered round the interpretation of
Section 27. To a great extent the legal
position has got crystallized with the
rendering of this decision. The authority
of Privy Council's decision has not been
questioned in any of the decisions of
the highest Court either in the pre or
post independence era. Right from
1950s, till the advent of the new century
and till date, the passages in this famous
decision are being approvingly quoted and
reiterated by the Judges of this apex
Court. Yet, there remain certain grey
areas as demonstrated by the arguments
advanced on behalf of the State."

811. The Hon'ble Apex court then laid down the

requisite conditions of this dispute in following
manner :

"The first requisite condition for
utilizing Section 27 in support of the
prosecution case is that the investigating

666

police officer should depose that he
discovered a fact in consequence of the
information received from an accused
person in police custody. Thus, there must
be a discovery of fact not within the
knowledge of police officer as a
consequence of information received. Of
course, it is axiomatic that the
information or disclosure should be free
from any element of closure should be free
from any element of compulsion. The next
component of Section 27 relates to the
nature and extent of information that can
be proved. It is only so much of the
information as relates distinctly to the
fact thereby discovered that can be proved
and nothing more. It is explicitly
clarified in the Section that there is no
taboo against receiving such information
in evidence merely because it amounts to a
confession. At the same time, the last
clause makes it clear that it is not the
confessional part that is admissible but
it is only such information or part of it,
which relates distinctly to the fact
discovered by means of the information
furnished. Thus, the information conveyed
in the statement to Police ought to be
dissected if necessary so as to admit only
the information of the nature mentioned
in the Section. The rationale behind this
provision is that, if a fact is actually
discovered in consequence of the
information supplied, it affords some
guarantee that the information is true and
can therefore be safely allowed to be
admitted in evidence as an incriminating
factor against the accused."

812. Elucidating the scope of this Section, the

Privy Council also in Pulukuri Kottaya and others
Vs. Emprer, AIR, PC 18, also held that : -

667

"normally, the Section is brought into
operation when a person in police custody
produces from some place of concealment,
some object, such as a dead body, a weapon
or ornaments, said to be connected with
the crime of which the informant is the
accused . "

813. The material point to be noted is that the
Privy Council rejected the argument of the counsel
appearing for the Crown that the fact discovered is
the physical object produced and that any and every
information which relates distinctly to that
object can be proved. Upon this view, the
information given by a person that the weapon
produced is the one used by him in the commission
of the murder will be admissible in its entirety.

814. While defining the expression 'fact
discovered' their Lordships held that : -

"it is fallacious to treat the 'fact
discovered' within the section as
equivalent to the object produced; the
fact discovered embraces the place from
which the object is produced and the

knowledge of the accused as to this, and
the information given must relate

distinctly to this fact. Information as
to past user, or the past history, of the
object produced is hot related to its
discovery in the setting in which it is
discovered. Information supplied by a
person in custody that "I will produce a
knife concealed in the roof of my house"
does not lead to the discovery of the

668

fact that a knife is concealed in the
house of the informant to his knowledge,
and if the knife is proved to have been
used in the commission of the offence,
the fact discovered is very relevant. But
if to the statement the words be added
"with which I stabbed. A" these words are
inadmissible since they do not relate to
the discovery of the knife in the house
of the informant."

815. The Hon'ble Privy Council also explained

the probative force of the information made

admissible under Section 27 in the following
words : "

" Except in cases in which the

possession, or concealment, of an object
constitutes the gist of the offence
charged, it can seldom happen that
information relating to the discovery of a
fact forms the foundation of the
prosecution case. It is only one link in
the chain of proof, and the other links
must be forged in manner allowed by law."

816. Similarly Hon'ble Madras High Court in

Emperor Vs. Ramanuja Ayyangar (AIR 1935 Madras
528), disagreed with the view taken in Sukhan ' s

case (supra) that the expression 'fact' in Section
27 should be restricted to material objects or
something which can be exhibited as material
object. It was held that the facts need not be
self -probatory and the word 'fact' as contemplated
by Section 27 is not limited to "actual physical

669

material object". Emphasis was laid on the wording
'any fact'. In this respect, the view taken in
Sukhan's case (supra) was dissented from. The
minority view was that the discovery of a witness
to the crime or the fact of the accused in
purchasing the incriminating material can not be
proved by invoking Section 27.

817. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State Vs.
Navjot's case supra concluded that : -

"We are of the view that Kotayya's case is
an authority for the proposition that
'discovery of fact' can not be equated to
the object produced or found. It is more
than that. The discovery of fact arises by
reason of the fact that the information
given by the accused exhibited the
knowledge or the mental awareness of the
informant as to its existence at a
particular place."

"The crux of the ratio in Kotaya ' s case
was explained by this Court in State of
Maharashtra Vs. Damu. Thomas J. observed
that "the decision of the Privy Council in
Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. Emperor is the most
quoted authority for supporting the
interpretation that the "fact discovered:
envisaged in the section embraces the
place from which the object was produced,
the knowledge of the accused as to it, but
the information given must relate
distinctly to that effect".

818. Similarly in Mohmed Inayaltuallah Vs. The
State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 828) , while
clarifying that the expression "fact discovered" in

670

Section 27 is not restricted to a physical or
material fact which can be perceived by the senses,
and that it does include a mental fact, explained
the meaning by giving the gist of what was laid
down in Pulukuri Kotayya's case. The Hon'ble Apex
Court held that : -

"Now it is fairly settled that the
expression "fact discovered" includes not
only the physical object produced, but
also the place from which it is produced
and the knowledge of the accused as to
this."

819. So also in Udai Bhan Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh (AIR 1962 SC 1116) , after referring to
Kotayya's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the
legal position as follows :-

"A discovery of a fact includes the object
found, the place from which it is produced
and the knowledge of the accused as to
its existence."

820. There is almost a direct decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court on the point raised and disputed
by learnd defence councel and in which the
connotation of the expression "fact occurring in
Section 27 was explored and a view similar to
Sukhan's case was taken on the supposition that
the said view was approved by the Privy Council in
Kotayya's case.

882. That decision is Himachal Pradesh

671

Administration Vs. Om Prakash (1972) 1 SCC 249) .

In that case, on the basis of information furnished
by the accused to the Police Officer that he had
purchased the weapon from a witness and that he
would take the police to him, the Police went to
the Thari of PW11 where the accused pointed out
PW11 to the Police. It was contended on behalf of
the accused that the information that he purchased
the dagger from PW11 followed by his leading the
Police to the Thari and pointing him out was
inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
This argument was accepted. And it was held by
Hon'ble Apex Court that : -

"In our view there is force in this
contention. A fact discovered within the
meaning of Section 27 must refer to a
material fact to which the information
directly relates. In order to render the
information admissible the fact discovered
must be relevant and must have been such
that it constitutes the information
through which the discovery was made.
What is the fact discovered in this
case? Not the dagger but the dagger hid
under the stone which is not known to the
Police .

883. Not even this the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Antar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan,
2004 (10) , SCC, 657 , again reconsidered the entire law
on this aspect summed up the legal principles as
follows : -

672

(1) The fact of which evidence is

sought to be given must be relevant
to the issue. It must be borne in
mind that the provision has

nothing to do with guestion of

relevancy. The relevancy of the
fact discovered must be established
according to the prescriptions
relating to relevancy of other
evidence connecting it with the crime
in order to make the fact
discovered admissible.

(2) The fact must have been discovered.

(3) The discovery must have been in
consequence of some information
received from the accused and not by
accused's own act.

(4) The persons giving the information
must be accused of any offence.

(5) He must be in the custody of a police

officer .

(6) The discovery of a fact in conseguence

of information received from an
accused in custody must be deposed
to .

(7) Thereupon only that portion of the
information which relates distinctly
or strictly to the fact.

884. Similarly the above settled principles of

law was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Geejaganda Somaiah Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in JT 2007 (4) SC, page 380 in the

following words : -

673

"For the applicability of Section 27 of
the Evidence Act two conditions are pre-
requisite, viz., (i) information must be
such as has caused discovery of the fact,
and (ii) the information must 'relate
distinctly' to the fact discovered. Under
Section 27 only so much of the information
as distinctly relates to the fact really
thereby discovered, is admissible. While
deciding the applicability of Section 27
of the Evidence Act, the Court has also to
keep in mind the nature of presumption
under illustration (a) to (s) of Section
114 of the Evidence Act. The court can,
therefore, presume the existence of a fact
which it thinks likely to have happened,
regard being had to the common course of
natural events, human conduct and public
and private business, in their relations
to the facts of the particular case."

885. Thus as per above discussed legal and

factual position, it is held that even, the
disclosure statements made by accused Balwant
Singh as well as other accused persons, which leads
to recovery of no incriminating articles or
evidence is still admissible in evidence if it
leads to a discovery of a fact, which includes a
place related to the crime and as per the law laid
down in State Vs. Navjot Sandhu's case (Supra) such
an information furnished to the Investigating
officers leading to the discovery of facts and the
conduct of the accused in pointing out the places,
where they stayed or from where the preparations
for the crime was made, are admissible being
conduct of the accused u/s 8 irrespective of the

674

fact whether the disclosure statement made by the
accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to
such conduct, falls within the purview of Section
27 of the Evidence Act.

886. Thus this act and conduct of accused
Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara in
identifying the places from where they procured the
necessary materials to prepare the belt bomb is
admissible as conduct under section 8 of the
Evidence Act irrespective of the fact that whether
the disclosure statement made by the accused falls
within the purview of Section 27.

887. In addition to this one more circumstance,
which further shows that after making preparation
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant Singh
reached Chandigarh is the testimony of PW-74, Amrik
Singh, a taxi driver, who deposed that on
28.8.1995, he was working as a driver on a Maruti
van DAJ-1431, which was being plied as a taxi from
Janta Taxi Stand, near Capital Cinema, Patiala and
on that day, two persons one of whom was a kesh
dhari, Sikh Gentleman and other was clean shaven
hired his taxi to go to Mohali and they accordingly
put two bags in his taxi and when they reached
Mohali, they get down of his taxi at Gurudwara near
Bus Stand, Mohali, where one more person was
already waiting for them and they delivered those
two bags to him and again boarded the taxi and then

675

alighted down after covering some more distance. He
further stated that during the investigations, CBI
recorded his statement and show him some
photographs out of which he identified two
photographs mark-UUUU and mark-UUUU/1 and
identified that both these accused persons, who
were accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant Singh
travelled in his taxi and came to Mohali. No
doubt, this witness has not identified the accused
persons in the court but as held earlier, the
identification by photographs is also a supporting
evidence and goes to prove that as stated by
Balwant Singh in his confession, after making
preparations at Patiala both of them came to
Chandigarh and joined the remaining accused persons
for further action.

888. Thus from the above discussed legal and

factual position, it is proved that as per their
conspiracy, accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh
Hawara got stitched two belts to be used as belt
bomb and police uniforms, purchased splinters,
battery and switch etc. to prepare the belt bomb,
which goes to prove that the facts disclosed by
accused Balwant Singh in his confession Ex.PW-65/F
are true and duly corroborated by the evidence
discussed above.

676

CIRCUMSTANCE NO. 6

Use of scooter no .PB-11-1955 by accused
Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara in
the conspiracy.

889. In his entire confession statement,
accused Balwant Singh has referred at various
points that in order to facilitate the preparation
etc. he used a scooter. As per the prosecution,
scooter number, PB-11-1955, Ex.P-77 was purchased
by accused Dilawar Singh through PW-34, Kamal Preet
Walia and it was handed over to accused Balwant
Singh for execution of his conspiracy.

890. This circumstance is also proved on the
file. In this regard, PW-34, Kamal Preet Walia
deposed that he is dealing in sale-purchase of
vehicles and scooter bearing registration no. PB-
11-1955, Ex.P-77 was purchased by him from one Amar
Singh in July, 1995 and later on, it was sold by
him to Dilawar Singh on 16th or 17th August, 1995,
through PW-54, Deep Inder Mehta alias Vipin and he
also handed over the registration certificate along
with the original affidavit of Amar Singh, Form
No. 29 and 30, Ex.PW-34/2 to PW-34/5.

891. He also identified the photograph of
Dilawar Singh mark YY . The statement of PW-34 is
further corroborated by PW-54, Deep Inder Mehta,
who has deposed that he know accused Lakhwinder

677

Singh, Balwant Singh, Gurmeet Singh and deceased
Dilawar Singh as all of them used to reside in
Street No. 12, Guru Nanak Nagar, Patiala.

892. He further deposed that on the asking of
deceased Dilawar Singh, to arrange a scooter for
him and Balwant Singh, on 16th/17th August, 1995 he
took them to Kamal Preet Walia and scooter Ex.P-77
was purchased by Dilawar Singh and it was handed
over to accused Balwant Singh.

893. As stated earlier, accused Balwant Singh
has not cross examined both these witnesses. As a
result the testimony of both these witnesses
remained unchallenged and it goes to prove that
scooter Ex.P-77 was purchased by Dilawar Singh for
using the same for the prosecution of the
conspiracy and thereafter it was handed over to
accused Balwant Singh to use the same during this
conspiracy and its execution.

894. This fact is further proved on the file in
view of the testimony of PW-49, ASI Arun Kumar of
Traffic Staff of Chandigarh Police as this witness
has deposed that on 24.8.1995, he had stopped
scooter number, PB-11-1955 and checked the
documents and when the driver of the scooter failed
to show the driving licence, he challaned him as
per the challan chit, Ex.PW-49/1 which is signed by
accused Balwant Singh and the registration

678

certificate of the scooter was taken on record.

895. He further deposed that the CBI had shown
him an album containing photographs out of which he
picked two photographs of the driver of the scooter
and the pillion rider, Ex.PW-49/3 and Ex.PW-49/4
and he also identified them as accused Balwant
Singh and accused Jagtar Singh Hawara in the court.
During his cross examination, he further deposed
that even accused Balwant Singh told him that he is
a policeman and stated that he should not be
challaned by a co-policeman.

896. As stated earlier, this witness was not
cross examined by accused Balwant Singh and even
when he was cross examined by the learned counsel
for the other accused persons, nothing material
comes out to shatter his testimony. He has denied
the suggestion of the learned defence counsel that
he is identifying the accused persons only on the
basis of the photographs shown to him by the CBI at
the time of his testimony.

897. As stated earlier, the identity of accused
persons by this witness in the court for the first
time is admissible in evidence as this witness has
seen the accused persons, when he challaned them
and he identified their photographs during
investigations and by that time both of them were
not arrested and therefore there can be no

679

situation that they may have been shown to this
witness .

898. As far as the plea of the learned defence
counsel that accused Balwant Singh in his
confession alleged that on 24.8.1995, he was at
Patiala and as such he cannot be at Chandigarh, is
concerned, this plea has no force because as is
clear from the challan chit, Ex.PW-49/1, both these
accused were challaned at 12.30 p.m. and it is not
impossible to reach Chandigarh from Patiala on the
same day as it is about 65 kms . away from
Chandigarh. At the same time, it is highly
impossible that the prosecution could fabricate the
challan chit as the entire challan book of this
chit, Ex.PW-49/1, shows that it was prepared in
continuous manner, date-wise and time-wise and
there is no possibility of interpolation etc.

899. In this regard, even PW-99, Chamkaur
Singh, brother of deceased Dilawar Singh deposed
that on 30.8.1995 when Balwant Singh and Dilawar
Singh came to his house, accused Balwant Singh kept
the challan chit of scooter no. PB-11-1995 on his
cooler. He also identified the challan book along
with the original challan chit Ex.PW-49/1 and
deposed that this relates to the challan chit which
accused Balwant Singh had placed on the cooler of
his room on 30.8.1995. He has also deposed that the
original challan chit as well as the carbon copy of

680

the challan, which was kept by the accused on his
cooler bears the signatures of accused Balwant
Singh .

900. As stated earlier, both these witnesses
were not cross examined by accused Balwant Singh
despite an opportunity being granted to him, as
such as held in State of H.P. Vs. Thakur Dass's
case (supra), the testimony of both these witnesses
remained unrebutted and the plea of the learned
defence counsel to challenge the testimony of both
these witnesses is without any basis.

901. Thus from the above discussion, it is
proved that scooter Ex.P-77 was in possession of
Balwant Singh and on 24.8.1995 accused Balwant
Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara were found together
at Chandigarh and thereafter they went to Patiala
and made necessary preparations to prepare the belt
bomb .

CIRCUMSTANCE NO. 7 :

Recovery of the scooter PB-11-1955 ,Ex .P77
and second belt of green colour Ex.P97
from the above scooter and its link with
accused Balwant singh.

902. As stated earlier, it is proved that
accused Balwant Singh was having scooter Ex.P-77 in
his possession and he used this scooter during the

681

execution of the conspiracy and he also disclosed
that when Jagtar Singh Tara and Dilawar Singh went
to Secretariat, he followed them on his scooter and
parked the same in Haryana side Parking and Jagtar
Singh Tara also parked the car and then he went to
Jagtar Singh Tara and Dilawar Singh in the car and
later on when Dilawar Singh left towards
Secretariat to detonate himself, he left the
Secretariat on the scooter and reached Patiala via
Rajpura and from Patiala, he went to Sangrur by a
bus, after parking his scooter at a parking of bus
stand, Patiala. This story as disclosed by accused
Balwant Singh in his confession is also duly proved
on record.

903. In this regard PW-72 Prem Singh, who was
working as an employee at the Pritam Cycle Stand,
Bus Stand Patiala, which is owned by PW-73, Kirat
Mohinder Singh, deposed that in the month of
August, 1995 he was working as an employee in the
above mentioned cycle stand and his duty hours were
from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m.

904. He further deposed that scooter Ex.P-77
was parked at their Cycle Stand on 31.8.1995 at
about 6.40 p.m. by a Hindu gentleman having fair
complexion and having mustache. While parking it,
he opened the dickey of the scooter and brought out
a belt from the pocket of the pant and kept the
same in the dickey. After that he issued a slip in

682

this regard by writing the time of parking and date
of parking and the factum of depositing of the
helmet, which is Ex.PW72/l. He further deposed that
the serial number of the slip along with the
registration number of the scooter was also
mentioned on the helmet which he identified in the
court as Article P-94.

905. He further deposed that the owner of the
cycle stand was also present and the scooter and
the helmet lying in their parking was taken into
possession by the police. The scooter was also
searched and when the dickey was opened by pulling
out the lid, a cloth belt was recovered from the
dickey of the scooter wrapped in an envelop. The
said belt was converted into a sealed parcel in a
piece of cloth, on which he has put his signatures
and all the articles including Helmet, Dicky Lid,
Belt Parcel and scooter were taken into possession
vide memo Ex.PW-72/2, which was signed by him and
PW73, Kirat Mohinder and other witnesses.

906. He further deposed that on 10.9.1995, the
CBI team came to him and placed some photographs
before him out of which he identified the
photograph of the person who had parked the scooter
and deposited the helmet on 31.8.1995, mark QQQQ
and also signed the same. He also identified the
helmet Article P-94, Belt Article P-97 and piece of
cloth in which it was sealed, Article P-98 as the

683

same articles. Not even this, he has also
identified accused Balwant Singh in the court as
the same person, who had parked the scooter along
with helmet.

907. Not even this, PW-73, Kirat Mohinder
Singh, owner of the cycle stand, also corroborated
the stand of PW-72 as to the search of the scooter
and taking into possession of the same by the CBI
as per the memo of possession Ex.PW-72/2 and
corroborated the facts narrated by PW-72 in this
regard .

908. As usual, accused Balwant Singh failed to
cross-examine any of these two witnesses despite
opportunity being granted. As such as stated
earlier, as per the law laid down in State of H.P.
Vs. Thakur Dass's case (supra), the testimony of
these two witnesses remained unrebutted as to the
recovery of scooter Article P-77 and belt Article
P-97 from the cycle stand of PW-73 and it goes to
prove that the facts narrated by accused Balwant
Singh in his confession are correct and duly
corroborated .

909. Even when both these witnesses were cross
examined by the learned defence counsel for the
other accused persons, nothing material came out
except the objection as to identity of accused
Balwant Singh by PW-72 alleging that this witness

684

had never seen the accused after 31.8.1995 and as
such how he can identify accused Balwant Singh in
the court specially when no test identification
parade has been conducted.

910. However, as discussed above, the
identification of accused Balwant Singh for the
first time in the court is duly admissible because
this witness has categorically gave the vital
statistics of the physical appearance of the person
who parked the scooter and out of the photographs
shown to him, he had identified the photographs on
10.9.1995 i.e. after 10 days of the parking of the
scooter .

911. At the same time, he has denied the
suggestion of the defence counsel that he has seen
the accused in the court prior to his testimony. He
has also stated that on 10.9.1995 this accused was
also not with the police party.

912. Above all, it is also proved on the file
that this accused was not arrested at that time, as
he was arrested only in the month of January 1996
and as such as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in D.Gopal Krishanan's case supra, the
Investigating agencies were having no option but to
show the photograph of this accused to the
witnesses to cnfirm his identity, as he was also
not available for identification and specially when

685

the identifying features of this accused were given
by the witness and the same were confirmed by
identifying the photograph of this accused. As
such, the plea put forward by the learned defence
counsel is not tenable in the eyes of law.

913. Thus, the above circumstances prove that
after the blast accused Balwant Singh reached
Patiala on his scooter and after parking the same
at the parking of PW-73, went further to evade
arrest and his link with the blast.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 8 :

Recovery of the slip Ex . PW-60/A,
containing a couplet written by accused
Balwant Singh from car no . DBA-9598 and
its link with accused Balwant Singh.

914. As stated earlier, it is proved on the
file that when PW-240, Inspector Nanha Ram
conducted the search of the car, Article Ex.P-76,
apart from the other things, a slip containing a
couplet in Punjabi, Ex.PW-60/A was recovered.
Accused Balwant Singh in his confession has
categorically deposed that when Dilawar Singh was
going to detonate himself, he left a message which
was written by him and he kept the message of
Dilawar Singh in the car. This fact is also proved
on the file as disclosed by accused Balwant Singh

686

in his confession.

915. As mentioned earlier, PW-60, Raju Tamir
Harran, when stepped into the witness box, has
categorically deposed that he had seen Balwant
Singh while writing and signing the papers and when
the slip Ex.PW-60/A was put to him, he deposed that
it is in the handwriting of accused Balwant Singh.
Not even this PW-95 has also identified this chit
to be in the hands of accused Balwant Singh and he
in turn failed cross examine him but admitted that
PW-95 has deposed true facts. As stated earlier,
Balwant Singh has not challenged the testimony of
these witnesses and admitted the same to be
correct. If it is so, there is nothing on the file
to disbelieve the testimony of PW-60 and PW-95 on
this aspect also.

916. No doubt, the prosecution has also relied
upon the report of the Document & Handwriting
Expert, Ex. PW-166/26, given by PW-166, T.R.Nehra
but even if we do not consider that report, the
factum of identity of the handwriting on the
couplet is duly proved from the testimony of PW-60.
Thus, this circumstance further proves that as
disclosed by accused Balwant Singh in his
confession, he remained part and parcel of this
conspiracy from the stage of its conceivement till
its execution.

687

CIRCUMSTANCE NO. 9.

Extra Judicial confessions made accused
Balwant Singh before PW-102, Kuljit
Singh his old friend on 01-09-95 and PW-
94, Gurpreet Singh and PW-95, Tejinder
Pal Singh on 2.9.1 995 .

917. As mentioned earlier, accused Balwant
Singh in his confession disclosed that after this
bomb blast, he reached Patiala on the scooter and
then went to Sangrur by bus and met his foster
father in the early morning at 3.00 a.m. on
1.9.1995 and disclosed to him about his task and
thereafter he went to Ludhiana to a friend, who is
posted at a Railway Station and then he went to
Nagpur and stayed with his friends and disclosed
about the entire episode leading to the killing of
Beant Singh.

918. Although accused Balwant Singh has not
confessed that he disclosed all the facts to his
friend at Ludhiana nor he named him. As such let us
consider whether accused Balwant Singh made extra
judicial confessions before the above witnesses and
if it is so, what is the evidentiary value of the
same .

920. To prove this fact, the prosecution

examined PW-102, Kuljeet Singh, who is old friend

688

of accused Balwant Singh, as he had also joined in
G.R.P. at Patiala and who was also knowing all
other friends of Balwant Singh including accused
Gurmeet Singh, PW-95, Tejinder Pal Singh and some
other friends named by him. With this back-ground,
he deposed that in the month of September 1995 he
was posted at G.R.P. Ludhiana and was residing in a
Government Quarter at GRP Ludhiana.

921. He further deposed that on 01.09.1995 at
about 9.05 a.m., accused Balwant Singh came to his
quarter. He was clean shaven at that time and was
perplexed and was wearing a light green coloured
pant and shirt. Instead of taking anything, accused
Balwant Singh took him out of his quarter and
instructed him to convey a message to his foster
father Jaswant Singh that if the police visited his
house, they should not tell the police that he is
on visiting terms with them.

922. On this, when PW-102 confronted him as to
the necessity of such a message, accused Balwant
Singh disclosed him that he and his companions had
killed Beant Singh, when Dilawar Singh acting as a
human bomb, detonated himself near Beant Singh. He
also disclosed that accused Jagtar Singh Tara had
drove Dilawar Singh in an Ambassador car to Civil
Secretariat and that car had remained parked there
as the person who had to drive away the car had
fallen ill.

689

823. He also disclosed that the RDX has been

procured from Pakistan through Jagtar Singh Hawara
and Gurmeet Singh had helped them in manufacturing
the bomb. He further deposed that thereafter he
offered juice to Balwant Singh who left him and
went towards Bus Stand. He further deposed that he
did not pass on the message to Jaswant Singh as he
was frightened and was having no concern with the
case. He also identified the photograph of Dilawar
Singh and Gurmeet Singh in the joint photograph
Mark TTT/2.

924. This witness was cross examined by accused
Balwant Singh himself but the entire cross
examination was as to the identity of Gurmeet Singh
and he denied the suggestion of accused Balwant
Singh that he never met him nor he disclosed
anything to him. However apart from this, the
testimony of this witness remained unrebutted.

925. Even when this witness was cross examined
by the learned defence counsel for the other
accused persons incisively, the stand of this
witness remained intact. On the other hand he also
disclosed, how the police came to know his identity
saying that Kulwant Singh, another brother of
accused Balwant Singh disclosed his name to the
police, he being a friend of accused Balwant Singh
and on 6.9.1995 he was called by the CBI .

690

926. No doubt this witness has admitted that
from 1.9.1995 to 5.9.1995 he failed to disclose
anything to anybody but it makes no difference
because this witness has already stated that he was
very frightened and was having no connection with
this murder and as such he was under a bona fide
belief that if he will disclose, the police may
harass or torture him. Apart from this, the
testimony of this witness remained unrebutted and
there is nothing on the file to disbelieve the
facts disclosed by this witness specially when the
facts disclosed in confession, Ex.PW-65/F, accused
Balwant Singh has disclosed the similar facts on
23.1.1996 when his confession was recorded.

927. Thus the stand taken by the accused
Balwant Singh in his confession is duly
corroborated by this witness and this extra
judicial confession of accused Balwant Singh before
this witness further fortifies the case of the
prosecution and further proves the factum of
conspiracy between accused Balwant Singh, deceased
Dilawar Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara and other
accused persons.

928. Similarly accused Balwant Singh in his
confession disclosed that on 1.9.1995 he took a
train from Delhi and reached Nagpur on the next day
and went to the house of his friend residing there

691

and informed him about the incident. But his friend
got afraid and told him to leave his house and for
the second night, he kept him in the house of
somebody else and thereafter the arrangement of his
stay was made in some Hotel.

929. No doubt, accused Balwant Singh has not
named his friend in the confession but the factual
aspects in this regard is proved on the file from
the testimony of PW-94, Gurpreet Singh and PW-95,
Tejinder Pal Singh, with whom accused Balwant Singh
stayed and before whom he suffered extra judicial
confession. Accordingly both these witnesses have
corroborated the making of extra judicial
confession by the accused before them.

930. First of all, PW-95 Tejinder Pal Singh,
who is an old friend of accused Balwant Singh,
being the resident of same Guru Nanak Colony and
being a child-hood friend of accused Balwant Singh,
deposed that accused Balwant Singh is his child-
hood friend and he know him and his friends
including deceased Dilawar Singh, Lakhwinder Singh,
Gurmeet Singh, who were also identified by him in
the court.

931. After that he deposed that as and when he
came to Patiala on his vacations, he used to meet
accused Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh and even in
the month of July, 1993 both of them visited him at

692

Nagpur and stayed with him where he was residing
along with his other friends including PW-94,
Gurpreet Singh and all of them had gone to Nanded
Sahib and Panchmari etc.

932. He further deposed that in June, 1995,
when he was at Patiala, he met Balwant Singh and
deceased Dilawar Singh as well as Deepinder Mehta,
another friend of all of them. He also deposed that
while leaving Patiala, he went to the house of
Balwant Singh, where accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
was also present and accused Balwant Singh
introduced him with him.

933. Then comes the material facts when this
witness has deposed that on 1.9.1995, he received a
telephonic message from accused Balwant Singh on
the number of his landlord, that he is coming to
Nagpur as Dilawar Singh had martyred in the
assassination of Beant Singh. After that, on
2.9.1995 accused Balwant Singh reached at their
house .

934. As per this witness, he has also disclosed
all these facts to his friends PW-94 Gurpreet Singh
and Amandeep Singh, who also came to his house,
when Balwant Singh came there. After that, they
took accused Balwant Singh to Amba Jhari Lake,
where accused Balwant Singh narrated all the
details about the facts stated by him on telephone.

693

935. As per this witness, accused Balwant Singh
told him that on 31.8.1995, he, Gurmeet Singh,
Dilawar Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Jagtar Singh and
other companions had assassinated Beant Singh,
Chief Minister, Punjab in the Civil Secretariat in
a bomb blast, in which, Dilawar Singh had served as
a human bomb. He further deposed that accused
Balwant Singh further stated that the belt bomb was
prepared in the room of Gurmeet Singh and an
Ambassador car, which was arranged by accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara and his companions from Delhi,
was used to reach the Secretariat, by repainting
the same into white colour from the friend of
Lakhwinder Singh at Chandigarh and on reaching
Secretariat, he wrote a Poem for Dilawar Singh. Not
even this, accused Balwant Singh also disclosed to
them that this assassination was plotted and
engineered at the instance of Wadhawa Singh and
Mehal Singh.

936. PW-95 further deposed that after knowing
all these facts, they all took meals and slept in
the flat of his friend Gurpreet Singh and on the
next morning, they requested accused Balwant Singh
to leave Nagpur so that they should not get in
trouble. However, accused Balwant Singh insisted
that he has no money and as such he has to stay at
Nagpur for sometime and they told him that they can
make an arrangement in some Hotel.

694

937. He further deposed that thereafter all of
them reached Hotel President, Nagpur where PW-94,
Gurpreet Singh made an entry in the Hotel Register
in the name of Sandeep Sharma as asked by accused
Balwant Singh and signed the same. He also
identified that entry as Ex.PW-94/1 and the
signatures of PW-94 as PW-94/2, on the register,
Ex. PW-94/3 .

938. He further deposed that accused Balwant
Singh stayed in that Hotel for 3rd and 4th September
and thereafter he shifted to Anant Mehal Lodge
where also the name of Balwant Singh was mentioned
at Sandeep Sharma with address of Patiala and he
made entry under his own signatures, Ex.PW-95/1
with the signatures, Ex.PW-95/2 on the register
Ex.PW-95/3. PW-95 further deposed that that on
6.9.1995 they took accused Balwant Singh to Bus
Stand, Nagpur from where he boarded a bus bounded
for Amravati.

939. He further deposed that he handed over
letters, Ex . PW-60/B-54 to Ex.PW60/B-62 which he
used to write and receive from Balwant Singh, which
were taken into possession vide seizure memo,
Ex.PW-95/4. He also deposed that during the
investigation, the CBI had also taken his writing
and signatures on sheets, Ex.PW-95/5 to PW-95/16.

695

940. He further deposed that he had also made a
similar statement before Metropolitan Magistrate,
Delhi, on 6.1.1996, Ex.PW-87/7. He had also
identified the photographs, Ex.PW-95/17 to PW-95/25
of Balwant Singh and also identified the
photographs, Mark FFFFF, Mark YY/3 to YY/5, Ex.PW-
88/3, Ex.PW-95/26 of deceased Dilawar Singh.

941. He also identified the handwriting of
Balwant Singh in the diary, Ex.PW-60/B on the pages
Ex.PW-60/B-l to 53 and also identified the
handwriting of Balwant Singh on the slip, Ex.PW-
60/A the poem written by accused Balwat Singh foe
Dilawar Singh.

942. He also identified the handwriting of
accused Balwant Singh in the Guest register of
Hotel Surya, Ambala City, Ex.PW-95/29 regarding
entry no. 93 in the name of Sandeep Sharma son of
Mohan Singh, Ex.PW-95/30 and deposed that it is in
hands of Balwant Singh with his signatures, Ex.PW-
95/31 as Sandeep Sharma.

943. Similarly he has also identified the
handwriting of Balwant Singh in the register of
Devika Hotel, Chipidhola, Agra, Ex.PW-95/32 as to
entry dated 29.10.1995 in the name of Sandeep
Sharma son of Ram Sharma of Panipat, Ex.PW-95/33,
with the signatures, Ex.PW-95/34 of Sandeep Sharma
in the hands of Balwant Singh.

696

944. Similarly he has also identified the
handwriting of accused Balwant Singh in the
register of Parbhat Hotel, Chipidhola Agra, Ex.PW-
95/35 against entry no. 37, who mentioned his name
as Rajiv Kumar son of Pawan Kumar, Panipat, Ex.PW-
95/36 with signatures, Ex.PW-95/37 in the name of
Rajiv Kumar in the hands of accused Balwant Singh.

945. Similarly he has also identified the
entry, Ex.PW-95/38 of the same register with the
same particulars. He also identified the entry,
Ex.PW-95/40, to be in the hands of Balwant Singh,
giving his name as Gurpreet Singh son of Malik
Singh, with the signatures of Gurpreet Singh,
Ex. PW-95/41 .

946. He also identified the similar entry made
at page 227 against serial number 4240 in the name
of Rajiv Kumar son of Pawan Kumar, Ex.PW-95/42 with
signatures, Ex.PW-95/43 to be in the hands of
Balwant Singh. Similarly he has also identified the
similar entry made in the records of Hotel Anant in
the name of Ashok Kumar of Kanpur, Ex.PW-95/45 with
the signatures, Ex.PW-95/46 to be in the hands of
Balwant Singh.

947. Similarly, he also identified the entry on
the register, Ex.PW-95/47 with signatures,
Ex.PW95/48 and entry dated 26.10.1995, Ex.PW-95/49

697

with signatures, Ex.PW-95/50 to be in the hands of
Balwant Singh.

948. When opportunity to cross examine this
witness was granted to Balwant Singh, he put a
question to this witness that he had made a correct
and true statement about his involvement and about
the involvement of Dilawar Singh but Gurmeet Singh
has been falsely implicated by him. But the witness
replied that he had made the statement as per the
facts disclosed to him by Balwant Singh, including
the role of Gurmeet Singh and Dilawar Singh.

949. The next question, which was put by
Balwant Singh to this witness, was that the belt
bomb used by him and Dilawar Singh was prepared in
his (Balwant Singh's) room and not in the room of
Gurmeet Singh but he denied this question and
reiterated that accused Balwant Singh has disclosed
him that the bomb had been manufactured in the room
of Gurmeet Singh.

950. He has also denied the suggestion that
accused Balwant Singh never disclosed the name of
accused Gurmeet Singh nor he i.e. Balwant Singh was
knowing accused Gurmeet Singh before he was
arrested in this case. Similarly the suggestion
given to this witness that accused Gurmeet Singh
has no connection with the assassination of Beant
Singh was denied by this witness, reiterating that

698

whatever accused Balwant Singh has told him about
Gurmeet Singh has been deposed by him.

951. Similarly when this witness was cross
examined by the learned defence counsel for the
other accused for nine days with an endeavour to
show that he has deposed falsely, nothing material
could come out. He denied all the suggestions of
learned defence counsels regarding the material
facts disclosed by him. Above all once accused
Balwant Singh suggested him that whatever has been
stated by him is correct except accused Gurmit
Singh, there is nothing on the file to say that the
stand of this witness can be disbelieved. On the
contrary it clinches the entire issue of Point for
Determination no . 2 and sufficient to pronounce the
final verdict.

952. At the same time to the same effect is the
testimony of PW-94, who has corroborated the stand
of PW-95 in toto and deposed as to how accused
Balwant Singh knows him and PW-95, Tejinder Singh;
how he met him; and how Balwant Singh came to
Nagpur and what was disclosed by him before them
and what they had done for the stay of Balwant
Singh at Nagpur for the period he remained there.

953. He categorically deposed that accused
Balwant Singh stayed in the Hotel President in the
assumed name of Sandeep Sharma and that entry was

699

made by him in the Hotel Register and he identified
his handwriting on the register and entries, Ex.PW-
94/1 to PW-94/3. He reiterated that he also made a
statement before Metropolitan Magistrate at Delhi
Ex.PW87/13 which is true and correct giving all
details of the case as disclosed to them by accused
Balwant Singh.

954. This witness was not even cross examined
by accused Balwant Singh despite opportunity being
granted. As such as per the law laid down in State
of H.P. Vs. Thakur Dass's case (supra), the

testimony of this witness remained unrebutted.

955. He was also grilled by the learned
defence counsel for six days without any success,
to challenge his testimony. No doubt, there are
some improvements in the facts stated by this
witness before this court in comparison to what was
stated before the Magistrate in statement, Ex.PW-
87/13 but this confusion and omission was also
explained by this witness when he stated that at
that time, he was under depression and as such he
could not disclose all the facts which he disclosed
in this court.

956. Similarly there are also some
discrepancies and omissions here and there in the
testimony of both these witnesses as to their
comparative stand as put forward before the CBI and

700

then in the court vis-a-vis their statements under
section 164 Cr.PC as they have been cross examined
for nine days and six days respectively by the
learned defence counsel alleging that they are
deposing falsely under the pressure of C.B.I.
However these contradictions are also in
conseguential as far as the admissibility of their
stand is concerned for the reasons in the following
paras .

957. No doubt some of these omissions are in
contradiction to the statement made by these
witnesses to the CBI in the year 1995 but these
were because of the fact that these witnesses have
deposed in the year 1999 and as such these
omissions and contradictions bound to occur due to
passage of time. However despite this, the overall
stand of these witnesses remained clear as far as
the role of the accused involved in the conspiracy
is concerned, specially when accused Balwant Singh
admitted that PW-95 has deposed true except gua
Gurmit Singh.

958. Not even this, in Matadin Vs. State of
U.P. AIR 1997 S.C. Page 1234, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the statements given by the
witnesses before the police are meant to be brief
statements and could not take the place of evidence
in the court. However where the omissions are
vital, they merit consideration, but mere small

701

omissions will not justify a finding of the court
that the witnesses concerned are self contained
liars .

959. Similarly the plea of the learned defence
counsel that the statements of these witnesses and
the statements of other witnesses have been
manipulated by the Investigating Officer only to
link the accused persons by padding and
fabrications, cannot be taken into consideration as
before accepting the evidence of a witness, the
court has to take an overall view as to the
credibility of a testimony depending on judicial
evaluation of the totality and not an isolated
scrutiny because if a case has some flaws those are
inevitable because human beings are prone to err
and no witness can depose perfectly because truth
suffers some infirmity when projected through human
process .

960. Lastly it is well recognized principle
that prima facie public servants must be presumed
to act honestly and conscientiously and their
evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth
and cannot be discarded merely on account of their
status and on the ground that they are interested
in the success of their cases.

961. Accordingly when the testimony of these
witnesses, who are very important witnesses, was

702

scrutinized, it comes out that there is nothing on
the file to disbelieve them as they are old and
childhood friends of accused Balwant Singh and no
motive or enmity has been attributed for deposing
falsely against the accused, specially when the
facts narrated by these witnesses are as per the
circumstances disclosed by accused Balwant Singh
and as such it co-relate each other.

962. Although these witness have passed the

test of cross examination successfully but during
the investigations, to ward-off any pressure,
threat, torture etc. on these witnesses, the
Investigating Officer/Agencies got their statements
recorded before PW-87, Rajinder Singh, the then
Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, who has
categorically deposed that when both these
witnesses along with Gurvinder Singh were produced
before him for recording their statements under
section 164 Cr.PC, he questioned all these
witnesses extensively as is clear from the
proceedings, Ex.PW-87/5 to PW-87/7, relating to
witness, Tejinder Pal Singh, Ex.PW-87/15 to PW-
87/18, relating to witness Gurvinder Singh (who has
not been examined by the prosecution during trial)
and Ex.PW-87/10 to PW-87/12 qua witness Gurpreet
Singh and found that they are free from any
pressure, threat etc and they are going to make
their statements voluntarily and then recorded
their statements which are, Ex. PW-87/7 of Tejinder

703

Pal Singh, PW-87/13 of Gurpreet Singh and PW-87/19
of Gurvinder Singh respectively. The cross
examination of this witness proved in vain to say
that the learned Magistrate has taken the requisite
precautions as required under the law before
recording the statements of these witnesses and
thus remained unrebutted.

963. In view of the above discussed legal and
factual position, it is held that accused Balwant
Singh made extra judicial confession before PW-102
Kuljeet Singh, who is an old and confidential
friend of Balwant Singh and also before PW-94 and
PW-95, who is also a child-hood friend of Balwant
Singh and admitted that the testimony of PW-95 is
true and correct. At the same time, all the details
disclosed by these witnesses relating to the facts
disclosed were known only to Balwant Singh and when
these statements were recorded, accused Balwant
Singh was not even arrested and as such there is no
possibility of fabricating these facts by the
Investigating Agency. If it is so, it is proved
that these extra judicial confessions are
voluntarily made and true and admissible in
evidence as per the principles of law discussed
above .

964. First of all, these confessions have been
made by accused Balwant Singh on the first and
second day after the occurrence, when he went to

704

his friends to evade arrest and at the same time,
the persons before whom these confessions were made
are unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the
accused and no motive of attributing an untruthful
statement has been brought out. Even after a
rigorous test on the touch stone of credibility,
the stand of these witnesses remained unrebutted.

965. At the same time, the facts disclosed by
the accused Balwant Singh to these witnesses by way
of extra judicial confessions are not disputed and
duly corroborated by the further evidence brought
on file by the prosecution showing the stay of
accused Balwant Singh at Nagpur and other places
under the assumed name.

966. There were genuine reasons to confide in
these witnesses by Balwant Singh being his old
friends and well wishers and as such these
confessions are proved to be unambiguous and thus
admissible as it emanates from the person who
committed the crime and also proved to be true and
voluntarily made and so proved by the witnesses.

967. As far as the question of corroboration is
concerned in State of Karnatka Vs. MM. Ram Dass,
AIR, 2002, Supreme Court, 3109, the Hon'ble Apex
Court again reiterated that the evidence in the
form of extra judicial confession made by the
accused to a witness can not be always termed to be

705

a tainted evidence. Corroboration of such evidence
is required only by way of abundant caution. If the
court believes the witness before whom the
confession is made and is satisfied that the
confession has been true and voluntarily made then
conviction can be founded on such evidence alone as
as unambiguous extra judicial confession possess
high probative value force as it emanates from the
person, who committed the crime and is admissible
in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and
suggestion of any falsity and free from any
collateral consideration etc.

968. Accordingly, in the present case, this

fact is duly proved as the extra judicial
confession of Balwant Singh before the above
witnesses is further substaniated by the other
evidence of prosecution. Thus as per the principles
laid down in Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab
(supra); Alok Nath Datta Vs. State of West Bengal
(supra); State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram's case
(supra) and Gagan Kanojia Vs. State of Punjab's
case (supra), these extra judicial confessions are
the most material circumstance which goes to prove
that the facts disclosed by accused in his
confession are true and further corroborated from
the evidence .

CIRCUMSTANCE NO. 10.

706

Recovery of photographs of all the accused
persons from the room of accused Balwant
Singh and deceased Dilawar Singh coupled
with other incriminating documents .

969. As stated earlier in view of testimony of
PW-85, G.D.Achint, an independent witness and PW-
237, A.K.Ohri, it s proved on the file that on
5.9.1995, when house no. 1223. Mohalla Guru Nanak
Nagar, Patiala, where deceased Dilawar Singh used
to reside, was searched and some documents along
with a book were recovered and taken into
possession as per recovery memo, Ex.PW85/l. The
book recovered having a title of Shaheed Bhagat
Singh, Article P-119. On the last page of this book
a sketch of the belt was also existing at point X.
Similarly photograph Article, P-120 was also
recovered .

970. Not even this, it is further proved on the
file in view of the testimony of PW-237 and PW-88,
Bodh Raj Garg that on 12.9.1995, the house of
Jaswant Singh, foster father of Balwant Singh, was
also searched in the presence of Jaswant Singh and
an album containing 65 photographs were recovered
and taken into possession vide memo, Ex.PW88/l and
all the photographs were signed by PW-88 and he
signed those photographs in the token of its
correctness, some of which are Ex.PW88/2,
EX.PW8 8/3, Ex.DRRRR, Ex.DRRRR/1, mark-KKKK. A

707

perusal of these photographs shows that all these
photographs are mostly of Balwant Singh and Dilawar
Singh. It is further proved that on further

search one bag containing 4-5 pants and shirts
along with one khaki uniform were recovered and
were taken into possession.

971. Similarly, when the room of Balwant Singh
in house no.68-A, Rattan Nagar, Patiala was
searched in the presence of PW-89 by PW-90
D.P.Singh on 5.9.1995, various documents including
five books of Punjabi, Article P-99 to Article P-
102, one appointment letter of Balwant Singh,
Article P-104, a diary of the year 1995, Article
Ex.P105, a letter head of Babbar Khalsa, Article
Ex.P-106, one application form bearing the
signature of Balwant Singh, Article Ex.P107, five
news paper Aj di Awaz, Article P-lll to 115, diary
of 1992 of Balwant Singh, Article P-110 and all
other articles including Audio Cassettes etc
collectively marked as Article Ex.P-117, were taken
into possession as per the seizure memo, Ex.PW-
83/1. This search was conducted in the presence of
Jasbir Singh, owner of the house, who, when
appeared as PW-83, categorically deposed about this
recovery .

972. Not even this when this witness was cross
examined by accused Balwant Singh, he further
deposed that he was also knowing deceased Dilawar

708

Singh, who used to visit Balwant Singh, when he was
residing in the said room and he was clean shaven
at that time. This recovery was further
corroborated by PW-84, Gurdev Chand, an independent
witness. Thus from the testimony of this witness,
it is proved that all the photographs recovered
from the house of Balwant Singh were the those
photographs, which were used by the Investigating
agencies to establish the identity of the accused
persons from various witnesses and the recovery of
all these photographs and incriminating articles is
relevant u/s 8 of the Evidence Act showing the
conduct of accused Balwant Singh and his
association with the remaining accused persons.

973. At the same time, this evidence also shows

that the plea of learned defence counsel as to from
where the Investigating officer got the photographs
is also clarified and goes to show that accused
Balwant Singh was in touch with all his co-accused
persons, who were part and parcel of this
conspiracy .

CIRCUMSTANCE NO. 11.

Discovery of hideouts and abodes , where
the accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar
Singh Hawara stayed till their arrest
including the places from where they use
to make international calls to their
bosses, and identification of those
places after disclosure statement by

709

them.

974. The other circumstance, which prominently
shed light on the involvement of accused Balwant
Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara and others in this
conspiracy as disclosed by him in his confession,
relates to discovery of abodes or hideouts and the
identification of those places.

975. In this regard, accused Balwant Singh in
his confession alleged that after the blast, first
of all, he went to Patiala on his Scooter and after
parking his Scooter, he went to Sangrur to see his
Foster father and then he went to Ludhiana and then
met PW-102, C.Kuljit Singh, from where he went to
Nagpur and stayed firstly with PW-94, Gurpreet
Singh and PW-95, Tejinder Pal Singh and then in
different hotels. After that he stayed at Nanded
Sahib for 3-4 days and again come back to Nagpur
and then to Delhi. From Delhi, he went to Panipat
and stayed for two nights in Nanda Guest House and
from there he contacted accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
through Germany and as per the information of
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, he reached Jaipur on
15.9.1995 and met accused Jagtar Singh Hawara along
with the family of Kuldip Singh Granthi .

976. After that he stayed at Jaipur in a hotel
for two days and then all of them went to Calcutta
and reached there on 19.9.1995 and stayed in a

710

Lodge for 3-4 days and then shifted to Hotel
Classic and stayed there for 10 days. After that
they shifted to Hotel New City lodge and after
staying there for about 10 days, they came back to
Jaipur and stayed there for 3-4 days and then he
and accused Jagtar Singh Hawara went to Farukabad
in UP and stayed there in Anant Hotel and after
some days, accused Balwant Singh went to Kanpur.
Then he came to Agra, where accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara also reached along with third person namely
Vikramjit Singh @ Billa, who also met them at
Calcutta .

977. From Agra, they all three went to
Farukhabad and stayed there after taking a flat on
rent and after that Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh
Hawara came to Ambala and stayed there for about 4-
5 days. After that Balwant Singh again went to
Farukabad and stayed there for 10 days and then
came back to Ludhiana and after staying there for
7-8 days, he reached Jalandhar as per the message
given by Jagtar Singh Hawara but both of them were
arrested by the Punjab police at Jalandhar.

978. After going through the evidence collected
by the investigating agency to prove these hideouts
and abodes, it comes out that the prosecution has
successfully proved that accused Balwant Singh and
Jagtar Singh Hawara stayed at different places of
India under the assumed names to evade arrest,

711

which fact further shows that they were part and
parcel of this conspiracy till their arrest.

979. Now let us refer to the specific details
of the evidence led by the prosecution in this
regard. As discussed earlier, it has been proved
that after the commission of this crime accused
Balwant Singh first of all went to Patiala on his
Scooter, Ex.P-77 and parked the same at Pritam
Cycle Stand, as proved by PW-72 and PW-73 and then
went to Sangrur in a Bus and then went to village
Mehraj and met his Foster father Jaswant Singh.

980. PW-180 Jasbir Singh, a taxi driver, has
deposed that on 31.8.1995 accused Balwant Singh
took his taxi and went to Village Mehraj and got
down near the Gurudwara of the Village and during
the investigation, he identified the photographs of
that person as Ex.D-RRRR and also identified him
in the court. As per the proposition of law and the
facts discussed above and held earlier, the
identity of this accused by this witness by the
photographs and then in the court is duly
admissible in evidence.

981. At the same time, when this witness was
associated in the investigations, accused Balwant
Singh was not arrested and as such there was no
question of establishing the identity of accused
Balwant Singh from this witness or to go for test

712

identification parade. He even alleged that the CBI
has shown him about 30 photographs and he
identified 2-3 photographs of accused Balwant
Singh. As such, it is proved that after reaching
Patiala, accused Balwant Singh went to the house of
his foster father at village Mehraj and then went
to Ludhiana.

982. It is further proved, in view of the
testimony of PW-88, Bodh Raj Garg and PW-237
A.K.Ohri, Investigating Officer, that when the
house of Jaswant Singh foster father of accused
Balwant Singh was searched, besides other things a
uniform was also recovered from the toilet, which
he left there. This fact further proves the
authenticity of the confession of accused Balwant
Singh .

983. As discussed earlier while considering the
extra judicial confession made by accused Balwant
Singh before PW-102, Kuljit Singh, it is also
proved that accused Balwant Singh reached the
quarter of PW-102 and after staying with him for
some time, he went to Delhi and then boarded a
train and reached Nagpur on 2.9.1995 and met PW-95,
Tejinder Pal Singh and PW-94, Gurpreet Singh, who
kept him in some flat for the night of 2.9.1995 and
thereafter they took him to Hotel President and
accused Balwant Singh stayed in Hotel from 3.9.1995
to 5.9.1995 and PW-94, Gurpreet Singh made an entry

713

in the Hotel register, Ex.PW94/3, showing the name
of accused Balwant Singh as Sandeep Sharma,
resident of Raipur and he identified his signatures
and handwriting for making this entry on the
asking of Balwant Singh.

984. The testimony of both the above witnesses
further proves that on 5.9.1995, accused Balwant
Singh shifted to Anant Mehal Lodge and stayed there
in the assumed name of Sandeep Sharma and the entry
of that stay was also made by PW-95 in his own
signatures and he identified the same as Ex.PW95/l
on the register, Ex.PW95/3.

985. They further proved that during his stay
at Nagpur, accused Balwant Singh made several
international calls to Germany and U.S. A and asked
some body to sent money. They further proved that
on 6.9.1995, accused Balwant Singh left Nagpur for
Amarawati and then went to Nanded Sahib and resided
there .

986. The factum of making of calls by accused
Balwant Singh from Nagpur is also proved on the
file in view of the testimony of PW-140, Radhey
Parkunte, who was working as employee in PCO in
Mudra complex, Nagpur, from where accused Balwant
Singh used to make international calls.

987. Accordingly, PW-140 proves that all the

714

entries dated 4.9.1995 at serial no. 16, 18 and 19,
Ex.PW140/2 to Ex.PW140/4 on the PCO register
Ex.PW140/l are in his hands. He further deposed
that when the CBI took this register, a photograph
was shown to him and he signed the same but he
failed to identify that photographs in the court
because of lapse of time. But once he identified
his signatures on the photograph, it itself shows
that it was the same photograph, which was shown to
this witness. At the same time, a perusal of the
PCO register Ex.PW140/l and the relevant entries
shows that all these calls were international calls
made to a single number and this fact is further
proved from the statement of STD calls made from
the PCO of PW-140 issued by the telecoe department,
which further fortifies this fact.

988. Then PW-231, Rajesh Kumar, Inspector, who
has seized this record, further stated that PW-140
has also identified the photograph of accused
Balwant Singh, with his signatures Ex.PW140/5. At
the same time, as stated by PW-95, these calls
were made by accused Balwant Singh.

989. PW-231 further proved that he also took
into possession the STD call register and statement
of Anant Telephone Centre, Nagpur, Ex.PW231/4,
which further shows that some International calls
were also made from this PCO. Similarly he also
took into possession the record of calls made from

715

Abhineet Corporation as is mentioned in the PCO
register of this PCO, Mark-231/B as well as
corroborated by the statement of calls of telecom
department, mark-231/A.

990. As such, this fact also proved the act &
conduct of accused Balwant Singh and is an
incriminating circumstance to corroborate the
statements of PW-95 and PW-96, whose statements are
otherwise admitted to be true by accused and thus
corroborate the confession of accused Balwant
Singh .

991. Similarly, the staying of accused Balwant
Singh in the Hotel President is duly proved on the
file in view of the testimony of PW-138, Harish
Kumar, who was the Receptionist of Hotel President,
Nagpur on 3.9.1995 and he deposed that on that day,
one clean shaven man with the name of Sandeep
Sharma stayed in their Hotel as per the entry,
Ex.PW94/l and at that time two other persons were
also came with him.

992. This witness has categorically identified
accused Balwant Singh as the person, who stayed in
their Hotel with the name of Sandeep Sharma from
3.9.1995 to 5.9.1995. Needless to say, accused
Balwant Singh has failed to cross examine the
witness on this aspect and as such as per the law
laid down in in State of H.P Vs. Thakur Dass's case

716

(Supra) , the testimony of this witness on this
aspect remained unrebutted.

993. Similarly, PW-139 Don Bosco, who was also
a Receptionist of Hotel President, Nagpur also
identified accused Balwant Singh as the same
person, who stayed at their hotel in the name of
Sandeep Sharma and deposed that he was on duty when
this accused checked out from their Hotel. Again,
this witness was also not cross examined by the
accused Balwant Singh and as such his testimony
also remain unrebutted.

994. Since the accused Balwant Singh resided at
Nanded Sahib, must be in the Gurudwara from
6.9.1995 to 13.9.1995, the prosecution could not
collect the evidence on this aspect but there is
further evidence, which shows that as disclosed by
him from Nanded, he came back to Delhi via Nagpur
and then contacted Jagtar Singh Hawara for further
action and then he came to Panipat and resided in
Nanda Guest House.

995. This aspect is also proved on the file in
view of the testimony of PW-131 Anup Singh, Manager
of the Nanda Guest house, who deposed that on
17.1.1996, CBI has taken into possession their
Hotel register, Ex.PW131/2 vide memo, Ex.PW131/l
because as per the entry dated 13.9.1995, one
Sandeep Sharma stayed in their Hotel from 13.9.1995

717

to 15.9.1995 as per the entry Ex.PW31/3, Ex.PW31/3-
A to Ex.PW31/3-C.

996. No doubt, this witness has not identified
the accused but the factum of staying in the name
of Sandeep Sharma clearly shows that as stated by
accused Balwant Singh, it was he, who stayed in
this Guest house from 13.9.1995 to 15.9.1995. At
the same time, PW-95 has already identified the
handwriting and signatures of the accused on the
register, Ex.PW-131/2, which further corroborate
this fact.

997. As per accused Balwant Singh, from Panipat
he went to Jaipur and met accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara, who took him and then they stayed in some
Hotel in which accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and
Kuldip Singh, Granthi were already staying. This
fact is also proved from the testimony of PW-188,
Babu Lai Sharma, Proprietor of Ganpati Guest House,
Jaipur, who deposed that as per the guest register,
Ex.PW188/l and as per entry dated 14.9.1995, one
Ajmer accompanied by two male and one female and
child stayed in their guest house from 14.9.1995 to
16.9.1995.

998. Then as alleged by Balwant Singh, there is
sufficient evidence on the file which proves that
on 19.9.1995, accused Balwant Singh along with
Jagtar Singh Hawara reached Calcutta and stayed in

718

Cheap Hotel for a night and then they shifted to
Hotel Classic.

999. PW-226, Badruzzaman, the son of the owner
of the Hotel Classic, as well as its Manager,
deposed that as per entry No. 2571, Ex.PW226/3 in
their Hotel register, Ex.PW226/l, one Gurmeet Singh
along with a lady and three more persons stayed in
their Hotel in two rooms from 20.9.1995 to
30.9.1995 and on 5.1.1996, this record was handed
over by him to the CBI and at that time, the CBI
had shown some photographs out of which he
identified photographs, Ex.PW-95/22, mark-VVVVV and
mark-VWW/1 and he also signed those photographs.

1000. No doubt, this witness has also not
identified either accused Balwant Singh or Jagtar
Singh Hawara but he disclosed that the three
photographs identified by him were of Kuldip Singh
and Hawara and those two persons were between the
age of 20 to 30 years.

1001. Similarly PW-220, Anwar Khan and PW-
221, Mumtaj Khan, who were working as Receptionist
and Manager of New City Lodge, Calcutta also
deposed that as per entry, Ex.PW220/2 in their
guest register, Ex.PW220/l, one Santokh Singh along
with five other persons including Sandeep, Amar,
Baljit Kaur etc. stayed in their lodge from

719

30.9.1995 to 13.10.1995 in two rooms and out of
those five persons, two were young boys of about 30
years of age and during the investigations of this
case, they handed over this record to the CBI and
when some photographs were shown to them, they
identified photograph, Ex.PW-95/22 of Balwant
Singh, mark-VVVVV of Hawara and mark-WWV/1 of
Kuldip Singh.

1002. No doubt, both these witnesses have
also not identified accused Balwant Singh and
Hawara in the court but as stated earlier, accused
Balwant Singh stayed with the assumed name of
Sandeep Sharma and the witness had identified his
photographs along with the photograph of Jagtar
Singh Hawara and that identity is sufficient
evidence to corroborate the confession of accused
Balwant Singh in this regard. It is stated by
Balwant Singh in his confession that from Calcutta
they came back to Jaipur, where Kuldip Singh
Granthi left them along with his family and they
stayed for three days at Jaipur and then went to
Farukabad and stayed in Hotel Anant .

1003. These facts are also proved on the
file in view of the testimony of PW-137, Radhey
Sham, who was the owner of the Hotel Anant,
Farukhabad and who deposed that as per entries,
Ex.PW95/45, Ex.P95/47 and Ex.PW95/48, one Ashok
Kumar along with two other persons stayed in their

720

Hotel for three different periods as mentioned in
the departure entries Ex.PW137/2 to Ex.PW137/4 on
the register, Ex.PW95/44. During his testimony,
this witness has categorically identified that it
was accused Balwant Singh, who stayed in his Hotel
in the name of Ashok Kumar but he could not
identify the other accused persons, who accompanied
him. He further stated that he also identified the
photograph, Ex.PW95/20 of that person, who was
with accused Balwant Singh. As such, the testimony
of this witness also corroborate the facts
disclosed by the accused in his confession.

1004. It is further stated by accused
Balwant Singh that after residing for some days at
Farukhabad, Jagtar Singh Hawara and other person,
Billa came back to Punjab and he went to Kanpur and
after residing for one night at Kanpur, he reached
Agra, where Billa and Hawara also reached and all
of them stayed in Hotel and then went to
Farukhabad, where they stayed in a Flat from where
they came to Ambala and from Ambala he alone went
back to Farukhabad and then he came to Ludhiana and
Jalandhar .

1005. PW-187 Ramesh Chand, who was the
Assistant Manager in Hotel Laxmi Palace in Jaipur,
deposed that as per the guest register of their
Hotel, Ex.PW187/l on 7.11.1995, as per the entries
contained at serial no. 91, one Jaskaran Singh s/o

721

Ram Singh along with one Rajeev Kumar checked-in
their Hotel and stayed there upto the next morning
and as per the record, they came from Panipat and
they have to go back in Panipat. It is also proved
that accused Balwant Singh stayed at some places
with the assumed name of Rajiv Kumar, as deposed by
PW-95. Similarly as discussed earlier, PW-188 has
also proved about the stay these accused at Jaipur.

1006. Similarly PW-126, Munish Chadha, who
was the Manager of the Surya Hotel, Ambala City in
the year 1995, deposed that as per the Hotel
register, Ex.PW126/A, two persons stayed in their
Hotel in the name of Sandeep Sharma and Jaskaran
Singh from 23.11.1995 to 25.11.1995 as per the
entries, Ex.PW95/30 and Ex.PW95/31 and the same
bear the signatures of the customer. No doubt, he
has also not identified any of the accused but as
mentioned earlier, it was accused Balwant Singh,
who was staying at Ambala in the assumed name of
Sandeep Sharma along with Jagtar Singh Hawara.

1007. To prove that, accused Balwant Singh
and Jagtar Singh Hawara had stayed in a flat, we
have the testimony of PW-135, Manish Pal, who is
resident of Farukhabad. This witness deposed that
in the year 1995-96, when they were residing in
Rajiv Gandhi Nagar in Farukhabad, one Ashok Kumar
met him in connection with hiring some house on
rent as he was residing in Hotel Anant and

722

thereafter he took him to the house of Mr. Gupta,
who rented out his house and thereafter he visited
Ashok Kumar once or twice and found that two more
persons with the name of Pardeep kumar and one
third person was also residing with him, whose name
was not told to him.

1008. He further deposed that in January,
1996, the CBI asked him about this and he
identified the photographs of those three persons.
He further deposed that Ex.PW135/l is the
photograph of the third person, who was residing
with Ashok Kumar. He also identified the photograph
of the person, who was residing there with the name
of Pardeep Kumar, which is Ex.PW95/18 and who is
Balwant Singh. He also identified the photograph of
Ashok Kumar Ex.PW95/22, who is Vikramjit singh @
Billa, who was accompanying Jagtar Singh Hawara and
Balwant Singh during their stay at different
places .

1009. Not even this, PW-136, Sanjay Kumar,
who was having a PCO at Farukhabad deposed that on
3.12.1995, an ISD call was made from his PCO to
Norway, as per entry, Ex.PW136/3 on the register
Ex.PW136/l. This witness during his cross
examination stated that Farukhabad was at a
distance of 6 km from Fatehgarh and as per PW-135,
accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara took
a room on rent at Fatehgarh. Thus, the testimony of

723

both these witnesses also complete the chain of
circumstances and proved that as stated by accused
Balwant Singh, all of them stayed at Farukhabad in
a rented house and then come back to Jaipur.

1010. Similarly, PW-210, Ajay Gupta, owner
of Hotel Prabhat Agra, proved about the stay of
accused Balwant Singh and Hawara etc. in his Hotel
for three different periods i.e from 6.11.1995 to
16.11.1995 and proved all the entries in this
regard of their hotel register. He also stated that
during the investigations, he identified the
photographs of one of those persons as mark-TTTTT,
which is of Jagtar Singh Hawara.

1011. In addition to this, PW-230, Girish
Joshi, owner of Kiran Hotel, Agra deposed that as
per the guest register of their hotel, Ex.PW230/l
for the period 15.9.1995 to 11.5.1996, vide entry
no. 1066 dated 22.12.1995 Ex.PW-230/2, one Gurdev
Bansal along with Surinder Bansal checked in their
hotel at 5.35 p.m. and they left the Hotel on
23.12.1995 at 5.00 p.m. This witness was also not
cross examined by accused Balwant Singh. No doubt,
this witness has not identified any of the accused
as the customers who had stayed in their hotel but
in view of the stand of the prosecution that the
accused used to stay in the assumed names and they
were accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara
who stayed in the above hotel, it can be believed

724

that the testimony of this witness is also related
to them.

1012. Apart from this, PW-95 has identified
the handwriting of accused Balwant Singh on all the
Hotel register as discussed above, which further
proves that accused Balwant Singh stayed at
different places with assumed names.

1013. Not even this, in Manish Dixit Vs.
State of Rajasthan, JT (2) Supreme Court,
Supplement (2), page 237, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that the evidence regarding entries made in
the hotel register with some assumed names is a
material circumstance as the factum of concealing
his identity from the Hotel people clearly imputes
his conduct and makes the same criminal. Similar
are the facts in hand.

1014. This proposition was also reiterated
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Vs. Navjot
Sandhu's case (Supra), where it was held that if
any information given by the accused to the
Investigating officers leads to the discovery of
facts and the act and conduct of the accused in
pointing out the places, where they stayed or from
where the preparations for the crime was made, such
disclosures are admissible being conduct of the
accused u/s 8 irrespective of the fact whether the
disclosure statement made by the accused

725

contemporaneously with
conduct, falls within the
the Evidence Act.

or antecedent to
purview of Section

such
27 of

1015. Thus as per above proposition of law,

the entire above discussed evidence which remained
unchallenged, it is proved that the discovery of
the hideouts and abodes of accused Balwant Singh
and Jagtar Singh Hawara is admissible u/s 8 of the
Evidence Act in so far as it is relevant to know
the conduct of these accused, which is influenced
by the material facts in issue and as such the same
is also admissible under Section 27 of Evidence Act
read with Section 8 and sufficient to conclude that
whatever has been stated by accused Balwant Singh
in his confession, Ex.PW65/F is correct duly
corroborated and also proves the story of
prosecution as projected.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO. 12.

Expert evidence i . e the reports of various
finger prints and document expert relating
to the comparison of the hand writing and
finger prints of accused persons on the
incriminating documents .

1016. In addition to the oral and

documentary circumstantial evidence discussed
above, one of the circumstance relied upon by the
prosecution is that the finger prints and the
handwriting of various accused persons were

726

compared with the disputed chance prints obtained
from the car Ex.P-76 and the incriminating
documents recovered either from the accused persons
or otherwise.

1017. Before discussing the various reports

of the experts, let us consider the two technical
objections raised by the learned defence counsel.
The first objection was that none of the specimen
finger prints of any of the accused persons or
their specimen handwriting and signatures were
taken before the Magistrate or with the permission
of the Magistrate and secondly as per the consent
of the accused persons. On the contrary, all these
specimens are forcibly taken and not proved to be
of the accused persons and as such the reports of
the experts on the basis of such documents are not
admissible in evidence.

1017. On the contrary, the case of the

prosecution is that this plea has been put forward
by the defence on the basis of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court of the year 1997 i.e AIR 1997
Supreme Court, page 2690. As such, it is of no use
because the investigations of the present case have
been conducted in the year 1995 and 1996 and at the
same time, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
itself held that u/s 4 of the identification of
Prisoners Act, the Police is competent to take the
finger prints of the accused but to ward-off the

727

suspicion etc., it is desirable that they should be
taken before or under the orders of a Magistrate.

1018. Accordingly after considering the
rival contentions of both the parties on this
aspect, it comes out that in Mohd Man Vs. State of
Raj as than, AIR, 1997 Supreme Court, page 2960 in a

case of conviction based only on the report of the
finger print expert, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that it is not maintainable because first of all
there was no evidence to show that the seized
article, on which the finger prints were found, was
not tempered before sending to Bureau and the other
suspicious circumstance found was that the specimen
finger prints of the accused were not taken under
the orders of Magistrate in accordance with Section
5 of Identification of Prisoners Act.

1019. However, it was also held that under
Section 4 of the above Act, the Police is competent
to take finger prints etc. but to dispel any
suspicion of fabrication, it is desirable that it
should be taken before or under the orders of
Magistrate .

1020. At the same time, it is also well
settled principle of law as reiterated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaspal Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, AIR 1979, Supreme Court, page 1708 that the
science of identifying thumb impressions is an

728

exact science and does not admit of any mistake or
doubt and if it is supported by other evidence, it
can be made basis for conviction. Similarly, it is
also well settled principle of law that the
evidence of a handwriting expert in any particular
case can also be sufficient to establish the
identity of the offender provided it should be free
from suspicion and duly proved and supported by
reasons .

1021. At the same time in State of U.P Vs.
Ram Babu Mishra, 1980 CLR, Supreme Court, page 197,

the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the well settled
proposition of law that during the investigation of
the case, a court has no power to direct the
accused to give a specimen writings etc. for the
purpose of comparison. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex
Court further held that under Section 5 of the
Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, a Magistrate
can direct the accused to give his measurement or
photograph but as far as the signatures and hand
writing are concerned, these are excluded from the
range of Section 5 of the Act.

1022. Thus the position, which emerges from
the above discussion is that, no doubt under
Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act,
the Police is authorized and competent to take
finger prints and the handwritings of the accused
during the investigations without permission of

729

court and consent of accused but in order to
eliminate the possibility of fabrication, it is
desirable that the same may be taken before or
under the orders of the Magistrate. But this
proposition will apply only after the pronouncement
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e after
8.5.1997 and as such this can not be applied to the
case in hand, which was investigated from 1.9.1995
to February, 1996, specially when Section 5 of the
above Act does not apply for handwriting and thumb
impressions .

1023. At the same time, after going through
the testimony of all the witnesses on this aspect,
it comes out that no motive or enmity has been
attributed qua these witnesses to allow the CBI to
fabricate the handwritings or the finger prints
etc. of the accused persons.

1024. As such, let us consider the expert
evidence and its evidentiary value to bring home
the case of the prosecution.

1025. The first expert evidence relied upon
by the prosecution is as to the finger prints of
accused Balwant Singh and Lakhwinder Singh found on
car no. DBA-9598 Ex.P-76. In this regard, as stated
earlier, it is proved on the file that on 1.9.1995
PW-178 after the inspection of scene of crime also
inspected the car lying in the Police Station and

730

as per his inspection memo Ex.PW178/l, he took
various photographs of the chance finger prints
available on the car as well as on its rear view
mirror and the rear view mirror was also taken into
possession to examine the same in the Laboratory.

1026. He further deposed that during the

investigations the specimen finger prints of all
the accused persons were taken by the investigating
agencies and were sent to him for comparison with
the finger prints, which were lifted from the car.
He further deposed that after examining the
aforesaid finger prints in the Laboratory, he found
one of the finger prints, mark Q-4 as similar to
the specimen thumb impression of accused Lakhwinder
Singh mark-SFP-24, as per his report Ex.PW178/5
with the reasons Ex.PW178/6. He also identified the
rear view mirror article Ex.P-155.

1027. He further deposed that on 16.1.1996

when accused Balwant Singh was arrested, he along
with Harinder Parsad went to the CBI Office and
took the specimen finger prints of Balwant Singh on
six sheets Ex.PW178/8 to Ex.PW178/13. He has also
identified accused Balwant Singh in the court and
when he was cross examined on this aspect, no
question was put to him as to whether accused
Balwant Singh has raised any objection while giving
his finger prints.

731

1028. At the same time, no motive or enmity

has been attributed qua this witness to fabricate
the finger prints or the chance prints. Simply
because of the fact that the finger print
laboratory is also under the supervision of CBI, it
can not be said that the experts always toe to the
lines of CBI as their opinions are based on
reasons, which are subject to cross examination and
the scrutiny of the court.

1029. At the same time, as far as the

report of PW-178 relating to Balwant Singh is
concerned, he proved that after taking the specimen
finger prints of accused Balwant Singh, he compared
the same with the chance prints and one of the
chance finger prints, Q-15 was found to be similar
to the specimen finger print mark-LTS-2, as per his
report Ex.PW178/14, coupled with the reasons,
Ex. PW178/15 .

1030. He has categorically stated that the

finger prints of two different persons can not be
similar as the science of finger prints is an exact
science. As stated earlier, accused Balwant Singh
has failed to cross examine this witness on this
aspect. As such the fact remains that the opinion
of PW-178 qua the finger; prints of accused Balwant
Singh on the Car recovered from the spot is duly
proved and as stated by accused Balwant Singh in
his confession, Ex.PW86/F, he remained with

732

accused Dilawar Singh in the car at the last
movement and as such there is every possibility of
his finger prints on the car and the report of the
expert is duly corroborate the case of the
prosecution in this regard. As far as the
evidentiary value of the report of this witness gua
accused Lakhwinder Singh is concerned, it will be
considered while dealing his case.

1031. The next expert evidence against

accused Balwant Singh is the report of PW-166,
T.R.Nehra as to the hand writing of accused Balwant
Singh on the slip, Ex.PW60/A containing a poem
written by accused Balwant Singh for deceased
Dilawar Singh, when he was going to detonate
himself as a human bomb. As stated earlier, PW-60
Raju Tamir Haran as well as PW-95 Tejinder Pal
Singh have already identified the handwriting of
this document in the hands of accused Balwant Singh
and as such the report of PW-166 in this regard
further fortified the evidence of these witnesses.

1031. PW-166 has categorically deposed that

he compared the hand writing of Ex.PW60/A with the
specimen handwriting of Balwant Singh, Ex.PW106/l
to Ex.PW106/9 as well as with the specimen
handwriting of Balwant Singh on the diary,
Ex.PW60/B-l to Ex.PW60/B-53 and found the same in
the hands of one and the same person. He further
deposed that he again reconfirmed his opinion as

733

per the subsequent report Ex.PW166/28. Thus, this
evidence prove beyond doubt that accused Balwant
Singh was part and parcel of this conspiracy from
its beginning to end.
CIRCUMSTANCE NO. 13

Making of Bomb in the room of accused
Gurmeet Singh with the help of accused
Lakhwinder Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara,
Jagtar Singh Tara and Dilawar Singh.

1032. One of the other material

circumstance against this accused as well as
against the other accused persons is that after
making preparation for making the bomb at Patiala
by accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara
and after adding some more splinters etc. at the
instance of deceased Dilawar Singh, accused Balwant
Singh along with other accused persons named above
assembled in the room of Gurmeet Singh, who is
admittedly an Electrical Engineer and then they
remade the bomb after adding some more RDX and
missiles etc. However, this circumstance will be
discussed in detail while discussing the case of
accused Gurmeet Singh and Lakhwinder Singh as it is
the main circumstance against Gurmeet Singh to
prove that he was part and parcel of this
conspiracy .

CIRCUMSTANCE NO. 14.

734

Repainting of Car from PW-51 Surinder
Sharma Painter by accused Balwant Singh
along with accused Dilawar Singh,
Lakhwinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh.

1033. The other circumstance, which relied
upon by the prosecution against the accused persons
is that after procuring the car from Delhi, the
same was brought to Chandigarh via Patiala and
Mohali and then it was repainted in off-white
colour to make it like a Govt vehicle and this work
was got done by accused Lakhwinder Singh from his
friend PW-51, Surinder Sharma painter, and accused
Balwant Singh, Dilawar Singh and Gurmeet Singh
accompanied him to his shop from 26.8.1995 to
29.8.1995 to take the delivery of the car.

1034. In his confession, accused Balwant
Singh has categorically confessed about the re-
painting of the car and he disclosed that as per
the plan, he and Dilawar Singh along with Paramjit
met to get the colour of the car changed and on
27.8.1995 Dilawar came to them and told that the
repaint of the car will take some time due to rainy
season and it was on 30.8.1995 when he and Dilawar
Singh went to the painter for collecting the car.

1035. It seems that accused Balwant Singh
has intentionally not disclosed the name of
Lakhwinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh for the
repainting of the car. However, in view of the

735

testimony of PW-51 it is proved that as far as
accused Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh are
concerned, they were involved in the repainting of
the car from PW-51. As far as the role of accused
Lakhwinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh in this regard
is concerned, it is will be considered while
discussing their case.

THE CASE AGAINST JAGTAR SINGH HAWARA

1036. As per the discussion made above, it

is proved on the file that accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara was the main author of conspiracy and
remains part and parcel of this conspiracy, till
its execution and his role from the stage, he
joined Balwant Singh is already discussed. In
addition to this, there are certain specific
circumstances, which further links this accused
with this conspiracy.

1037. Not even this, the evidence led by

the prosecution further shows that the accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara along with Jagtar Singh Tara
have played some joint role including the
preparations made for the success of their
conspiracy and as such while discussing those
aspects, the evidence against accused Jagtar Singh
Tara, since proclaimed offender, will also be
considered, though only for the purpose of Section
299 Cr.P.C.

736

1038. Accordingly after considering the
evidence of prosecution on this aspect, it comes
out that the prosecution has successfully proved
the following circumstances to link accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh Tara with the
conspiracy and its execution. As such, let us
analyse the evidence of prosecution with those
circumstances .

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 1

Association of Jagtar Sinth Hawara with
absconding accused Mehal Singh and Wadhawa
Singh for hatching this conspiracy.

1039. As discussed earlier, it is proved on
the file as per the confession of accused Balwant
Singh, which is admissible for accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara also as per the provisions of Section 10 and
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, and which is
further corroborated by the circumstances discussed
above, that accused Wadhawa Singh and Mehal Singh
being the members of Babar Khalsa International
deputed accused Jagtar Singh Hawara to kill Beant
Singh .

1040. This fact is also stated by accused
Jagtar Singh Tara in his confession, Ex.PW86/6 in
which he has categorically stated that accused

737

Paramjit singh, who is being tried separately
introduced him with accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, in
July, 1995 at Delhi, where accused Paramjit Singh
was residing with his brother and it was disclosed
to him that accused Jagtar Singh Hawara has got
training in Pakistan, being a member of Babbar
Khalsa and has been sent to India to kill Late
Beant Singh and they requested him to help them to
kill Beant Singh for which they have already made a
plan and he i.e. accused Jagtar Singh Tara agreed
to help them and joined the conspiracy from that
stage onwards.

1041. Not even this, it is also proved on
the file that accused Shamsher Singh has also
suffered a confession, which is true and
voluntarily made and in that confession, he has
also stated that he was knowing accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara since the year 1993 and in July, 1995
Jagtar Singh Hawara came to him and asked him that
he has came from Pakistan and accused Wadhawa Singh
and Mehal Singh of Babbar Khalsa have asked him to
kill Beant Singh, who has started comparing himself
with Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh.

1042. As stated earlier, no doubt, the
confession made by accused Shamsher Singh is not
admissible as substantive evidence against accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara by implication of Section 10 of
Evidence Act but still it can be considered to

738

corroborate the evidence, which comes on the file
against Jagtar Singh Hawara, as per the provisions
of Section 30 of Evidence Act. Thus, this fact
further proves the indulgence of Jagtar Singh
Hawara in this conspiracy.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO. 2.

Association of accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
with accused Balwant Singh, through
absconding accused Manjinder Singh.

1043. As discussed earlier it is proved on
the file from the testimony of PW-132 that accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara and Manjinder Singh called
accused Balwant Singh at Delhi and stayed in Surya
Guest House Dariya Gan j , where a final plan was
made by Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant Singh. PW-
132 has categorically identified accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara and Balwant Singh as the persons, who
came to his guest house with Manjinder Singh.

1044. This fact shows that the accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara came to India to complete his
task being the main perpetrator of this conspiracy
and then made a complete chain of men and materials
by associating other persons including accused
Balwant Singh, deceased Dilawar Singh, Jagtar Singh
Tara etc. and thereafter made necessary

739

preparations including the procurement of a Car,
RDX, uniforms, belt bomb, a place to work and
lastly some hands to help him and ultimately
achieved his so-called task in the name of his
religion .

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 3

Association of accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
with absconding accused Kuldip Singh @ Ram
Singh and taking shelter in his house
before and after the conspiracy.

1045. As discussed earlier, as per the
directions of Wadhawa Singh etc, accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara came to India and settled himself in
the house of absconding accused Kuldip Singh @ Ram
Singh, in a locality known as Nand Gram Colony,
Ghaziabad, which is near to the Delhi but away from
the hustle and bustle.

1046. This fact is duly proved on the file
in view of testimony of PW-121, who deposed that he
is resident of Nand Gram Ghaziabad and he had
spotted Jagtar Singh Hawara in the house of Ram
Singh 4-5 times and said Ram Singh was residing in
his house since June, 1995 and he saw Hawara in his
house in the month of July and August, 1995. This
witness has further proved the identity of this
house by accused Jagtar Singh Hawara in his

740

presence along with the recovery of incriminating
facts, which will be considered later on.

1047. To the same effect is the testimony
of PW-122, Bhupinder Singh, who has arranged the
house for Ram Singh @ Kuldip Singh and this witness
also deposed that he being a property dealer
arranged a house for Ram Singh and said Ram Singh
purchased H.No.341-A in Nand Gram Colony, Ghaziabad
in the year 1995. This witness has also identified
the photograph of Ram Singh @ Kuldip Singh,
Ex.PW122/l with his signatures and photograph of
Jagtar Singh Hawara, Ex.PW122/2.

1048. During his cross examination, this
witness has categorically stated that Ram Singh was
already known to him even before the purchase of
house. Although this witness is also witness of
making of disclosure statement and recovery of
incriminating articles by accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara. But this will be considered later on.

1049. He has further stated that said Ram
Singh resided in that house only upto September,
1995 and then left the house. The testimony of this
witness was challenged by learned defence counsel
on the plea that the identity of accused Kuldip
Singh @ Ram Singh on the basis of photograph is not
admissible .

741

1050. However, there is no force in this
plea because PW-122 has categorically stated that
he was already knowing Ram Singh @ Kuldip Singh and
as such whether this witness has seen the
photographs of this accused or not makes no
difference, to doubt his ability to identify
accused Ram Singh.

1051. Similarly PW-121 has also stated that
he had seen accused Ram Singh at least 4-5 times
when he started living in his neighborhood between
June, 1995 to August, 1995. Not even this, he has
further stated that he had also seen accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara in the house of accused Ram Singh 4-5
times .

1052. If it is so, as per the settled
proposition of law, as discussed above and finally
reiterated in D. Gopal Krishanan Vs. Sadanand's

case supra, the testimony of both these witnesses
as to the identity of both these accused can safely
be relied upon for more than one reasons.

1053. Firstly one of the witness was
knowing accused Kuldip Singh @ Ram Singh even
prior to this case and at the same time he has seen
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara on so many times and
thus was justified to retain his identity in his
memory and it was not a case of mere 'fleeting
glimpse ' .

742

1054. For the same reason, they can
identify their photographs, specially when, by that
time, both these accused were not arrested and when
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara was arrested, he was
identified by them. At the same time, in D. Gopal
Krishanan's case supra, it is also reiterated that
identity through photographs itself is permissible
in law.

1055. Thus the testimony of both these
witnesses remained unrebutted as far as the
identity of accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and
absconding accused Kuldip Singh Granthi @ Ram
Singh and their residence in H. No. 341, Nand Gram
Colony, Ghaziabad for the purpose of this
conspiracy, is concerned.

Circumstance No. 4.

Discovery of abodes and hideouts of
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara after the
commission of crime till his arrest.

1056. At the time of discussing the
evidence as to the abode and hideouts, where
accused Balwant Singh individually as well as
collectively stayed along with accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara, it was also proved that when Balwant Singh
reached Jaipur on the asking of Jagtar Singh

743

Hawara, accused Kuldip Singh Granthi along with his
family was also there and all of them stayed at a
Hotel in Jaipur from 15.9.1995 to 18.9.1995, as
proved by PW-187, Ramesh Chand and thereafter all
of them stayed at Calcutta from 19.9.1995 onwards
till the time, they returned back to Jaipur, from
where accused Kuldip Singh Granthi and his family
left them for some other place. And thereafter they
stayed at Agra, Ambala City and other places till
their arrest.

1057. Thus, this fact further shows that,
as alleged by the prosecution, accused Kuldip Singh
Granthi @ Ram Singh was also involved in the
conspiracy and as held earlier, on the asking of
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, he took a house at
Ghaziabad, which was used by accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara for his residence before and after the
conspiracy .

1058. In addition to this, from the cogent
testimony of PW-121 and PW-122 it is also proved
that after this bomb blast, accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara escaped and remained in the house of accused
Kuldip Singh @ Ram Singh at house no. 341-A Nand
Gram Colony, Ghaziabad initially, then he along
with accused Kuldip Singh and his family run away
from that place and joined accused Balwant Singh
and all of them stayed together at different places
as discussed and held earlier.

744

1059. Thus, as stated by accused Balwant

Singh in his confession, this circumstance also
corroborates him and proved the role of accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara as the king-pin of this
conspiracy .

CIRCUMSTANCE NO. 5.

Recovery of incriminating object i.e
sketch map of Punjab & Haryana Secretariat
and the belt bomb, Ex.PWl21/3 from the
house of absconding accused Kuldip Singh @
Ram Singh in consequences to the
disclosure statement of accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara and identification all the
places where he remained and from where he
use to make international calls to his
bosses .

1060. As held above, it is proved on the
file that after coming to India, accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara asked absconding accused Kuldip Singh
@ Ram Singh to arrange a house for him some where
near Delhi and accordingly Kuldip Singh with the
help of PW-122, Bhupinder Singh, purchased house
No.341-A in Nand Gram colony, Ghaziabad, where
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara stayed from June, 1995
till September, 1995.

1061. It is alleged by the prosecution that

745

after his arrest accused Jagtar Singh Hawara made a
disclosure statement, Ex.PW121/2 and got recovered
the sketch map of the Punjab & Haryana Secretariat,
showing the plan to hit the target along with
sketch of belt bomb.

1062. As argued by learned Public
Prosecutors, this fact is also duly proved on the
file and proves to be a material circumstance to
link accused Jagtar Singh Hawara with this
conspiracy. In this regard, PW-121, Anil Bhatia in
addition to proving the presence and identity of
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara in the house of Kuldip
Singh @ Ram Singh in Nand Gram Colony, further
proves that during the investigations, in his
presence accused Jagtar Singh Hawara suffered two
disclosure statements, first Ex.PW121/2 to the
effect that he had prepared a sketch map of Punjab
and Haryana secretariat along with sketch of belt
bomb to explain Ram Singh, how to hit the target,
and it is concealed in the house of Ram Singh and
he can get the same recovered if taken to that
place. Secondly, Ex.PW-121/1 as to making of calls
to Resham Singh in Germany, who is President of
Babbar Khalsa International, from the two different
PCOs, one on the Merrut road, Ghaziabad and other
in the Nand Gram Colony, itself and disclosed that
he can get those PCOs identified.

1063. Similarly, PW122, Bhupinder Singh,

746

who being a Property Dealer had arranged a house
for Kuldip Singh @ Ram Singh, also deposed about
the making of disclosure statements by the accused.
Both these witnesses further deposed that as per
his disclosure statements, accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara took the police party to Nand Gram Colony in
the evening and first of all then went to house
no.341-A and himself produced the sketch map,
Ex.PW121/3, which was taken into possession as per
seizure memo Ex.PW121/4, in their presence and
which is signed by them. The testimony of both
these witnesses remained unshattered despite
incisive cross examination and proved the factum of
recovery of sketch map, Ex.PW-121/3.

1064. They further deposed that after that,
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara took the police party
to a PCO situated on the Merrut Road, Ghaziabad in
the name of Garg Communication and identified the
same, in the presence of PW-133, Dinesh Chand Garg,
owner of the PCO and also identified the second PCO
of PW-130, Rajesh Malhotra in Nand Gram and a
joint memo of identification, Ex.PW121/5 was
prepared, which has been signed by all of them.

1065. To the same effect is the testimony
of PW-130, Rajesh Malhotra and PW-133, Dinesh Garg
and when stepped into the witness box they both
have deposed that on 23.1.1996 officials of the
CBI came to their PCOs along with PW-121 and PW-

747

122 and one Sikh Gentleman to whom they identified
in the court as Jagtar Singh Hawara, identified
their booths at his own as per memo of
identification, Ex.PW121/5, which has been signed
by all of them. They also identified the
photographs of accused Jagtar Singh Hawara.

1066. When, both these witnesses were cross
examined by learned defence counsels, it was
alleged that the CBI has shown the photographs of
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara to them and they
identified him on the basis of those photographs
but both these witnesses denied this fact and
stated that they have seen the photographs, only on
28.1.1996, when their statements were recorded by
PW-239, A.G.L.Kaul, as the person, who had
identified their PCOs on 23.1.1996.

1067. They have also denied the suggestions
that accused Jagtar Singh Hawara has been shown
to them in the court and they identified him on the
asking of the CBI. The net result is that the
testimony of both these witnesses remained
unrebutted, despite the endeavour of learned
defence counsels and goes to prove that accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara identified their shops to show
that he used to make National and International
calls during the period of this conspiracy.

1068. Not even this, PW-241, Surinder Pal

748

Singh, DSP further deposed that on 22.1.1996,
during his interrogation, accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara suffered another disclosure statement,
Ex.PW201/l in which he admitted this conspiracy and
meeting with Manjinder Singh at Surya Guest House,
Netaji Subhash Marg, Dariya Ganj , New Delhi in the
presence of Balwant Singh and also disclosed that
he can identify that place.

1069. And thereafter he suffered another
disclosure statement, Ex.PW201/2 in which he
disclosed that he can identify the PCO situated in
the Gol Market, Delhi from where he used to make
calls to Resham Singh, President of Babbar Khalsa,
who is residing in Germany in connection with
conspiracy, in the presence of PW-201, S.V.Singh,
an independent witness and thereafter he took the
police party to Delhi to Netaji Subhash Road,
Dariya Ganj at Surya Guest House and identified
the same, as per identification memo Ex.PW201/4 in
the presence of PW-201 and thereafter he identified
the PCO in the Gol Market from where he used to
make international calls as per pointing out memo
Ex.PW201/6. Making of these disclosure statements
and identification of these places is duly
identified by PW-201, whose testimony remained
unrebutted despite incisive cross examination.

1070. Thus as per above proposition of law,
the entire above discussed evidence, which remained

749

unchallenged, it is proved that the discovery of
the hideouts and abodes of accused Balwant Singh
and Jagtar Singh Hawara along with recovery of
incriminating documents and articles coupled with
the identification of all the places, where they
used to reside and from where they continued to
have contacts with their bosses, is admissible u/s
8 of the Evidence Act in so far as it is relevant
to know the conduct of these accused, which is
influenced by the material facts in issue and as
well as under Section 27 of Evidence Act read with
Section 8 and sufficient to conclude that whatever
has been stated by accused Balwant Singh in his
confession, Ex.PW65/F is correct and duly
corroborated and also proves the story of
prosecution as projected, including the anchor role
and act and conduct of accused Jagtar Singh Hawara.
The stand of accused Balwant Singh that only he and
Dilawar Singh were involved in this operation is
far from truth and has been put-forward just to
save his comrades.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 6 .

Expert evidence against accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara.

1071. As discussed above, it is proved on

the file that after the arrest of accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara, he suffered a disclosure statement
and got recovered the sketch of the belt bomb from

750

the house of absconding accused Kuldip Singh
Granthi in the presence of PW-121, Anil Bhatia and
PW-122, Bhupinder Singh.

1072. To show that this sketch is in the
hands of accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, the
prosecution relied upon the report of PW-242,
Dr.M.A.Ali, Ex.PW242/l, vide which after comparing
the guestioned writing on the sketch map of Punjab
& Haryana Secretariat and belt bomb, Ex.PW123/3,
which was marked by the expert as Q-3/1 on the
writing and Q-3/2 as to the sketch part, he found
that as far as the writing mark Q-3/1 on the sketch
Ex.PW121/3 is concerned, it is similar to the
specimen handwriting of accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara, marked S-34 to S-42 and S-46, which were
taken before PW-144, 0 . P . Sehrawat , who has
categorically deposed that the specimen hand
writing of accused Jagtar Singh Hawara was taken
in his presence on several sheets, which are
EX.PW144/1 to EX.PW144/17.

1073. No doubt, this witness in his report
Ex.PW242/l mentioned that it is not possible to
express any stronger opinion as to the similarities
but in the witness box, he clarified that by this
he means, he could not find the natural variation
of certain letters but otherwise, there were
similarities in the individual writing,
characteristics between the guestioned and specific

751

writings, which indicates that both have been
written by the same person.

1074. The learned defence counsel has tried
to challenge the authenticity of this report by
saying that this fact is not mentioned in report
Ex.PW242/l. However, there is no force in this plea
as in the report, PW-242 has mentioned the
similarities observed in the individual writings
characteristics between the questioned writings
mark Q-3/1 and specimen writings mark S-34 to mark
S-44, which means the report of PW-242, which was
only to corroborate the link of sketch map,
Ex.PW121/3 with Jagtar Singh Hawara is duly proved.

1075. Similarly, the plea of learned
defence counsel that earlier these writings were
compared by PW-234, S.L.Mukhi but he failed to give
any opinion as there was no similarity in the both
and then to wriggle out from that, the subsequent
report of PW-242 was obtained, is concerned, PW-234
was not cross examined by the learned defence
counsel on this aspect and even perusal of his
report Ex.PW234/l shows that no opinion was called
from this witness as to the authorship of
questioned sketch map, Ex.PW121/3, which was marked
as Q-3 and even otherwise he has mentioned that he
is unable to express any opinion regarding the
authorship of this document, which means he has
nowhere admitted that after comparing Q-3 with the

752

specimen hand writing of Jagtar Singh Hawara, he
held that the same are not of the same person.

1076. At the same time, even if we ignore
this report, there is nothing on the file to
disbelieve the recovery of sketch map from the
house of accused Kuldip Singh @ Granthi, where
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara stayed prior and after
the conspiracy. Thus this circumstnce further
proves that accused Jagtar Singh Hawara was part
and parcel of this conspiracy and after deputing
Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh to hit the target,
he left Chandigarh immediately when accused Balwant
Singh and Dilawar Singh reached Secretariat, being
boss of conspiracy and reached Nand Gram Colony to
take shelter for some days and to report his bosses
that the mission completed and then escaped
further .

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 7 . :

Purchase of Car No. DBA- 95 98, Ex.P76 along
with accused Jagtar Singh Tara, from PW-32
S.K.Dutta and its use in the commission of
this crime.

1077. As discussed earlier, Car No. DBA-
9598, Ex.P76, was used by the accused persons for
the commission of this crime, as it was recovered
from near the site of blast and found containing
incriminating articles as discussed above including

753

the finger prints of accused Balwant Singh and
Lakhwinder Singh.

1078. It is further stated by accused

Balwant Singh that this car was purchased by
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara with the help of
accused Jagtar Singh Tara from Delhi and then
brought to Chandigarh. Thus, let us analyse the
evidence of the prosecution in this regard against
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara as well as against
accused Jagtar Singh Tara (now proclaimed
offender) , against whom this is the most material
circumstance to link him with this conspiracy.

1079. It is alleged by the prosecution that

accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh Tara
contacted PW-32, S.K.Dutta, who gave an
advertisement to sell his Car, Ex.P-76 and
purchased this car from him and while doing so,
accused Jagtar Singh Tara represented himself to be
Basant Singh s/o Jagir Singh resident of Delhi, for
a total consideration of Rs.32,000/- and executed
various documents in this regard.

1080. Although, the learned defence

counsels vehemently argued that the prosecution has
failed to prove this fact against any of the
accused persons including their identity as the
alleged purchasers. However, this endeavour of
learned defence counsel proved in vain for the

754

reasons discussed in the following paras.

1081. First of all, as stated earlier,
accused Balwant Singh, in his confession Ex.PW65/F,
categorically disclosed this fact. Above all,
accused Jagtar Singh Tara in his confession
Ex.PW86/6, also admitted that on 20.8.1985 he along
with accused Jagtar Singh Hawara went to the house
of PW-32 and purchased the car Ex.P76 and on the
asking of Jagtar Singh Hawara, he represented
himself as Basant Singh s/o Jagir Singh, resident
of Shakarpura, Delhi and they parked the car in the
house of Paramjit Singh, who is being tried
separately and thereafter on receiving a coded
telephone message from Jagtar Singh Hawara, he and
Paramjit Singh brought this car to Patiala and
thereafter joined the remaining accused persons for
further action.

1082. As per the legal position discussed
above, the confession made by accused Jagtar Singh
Tara is a substantive evidence against him and is
thus sufficient to link him with this circumstance
and conspiracy.

1083. At the same time, this aspect is duly
proved on the file from the testimony of PW-32,
S.K.Dutta, who was admittedly the registered owner
of the car in question. This witness, when stepped
into the witness box, deposed that he was the owner

755

of the car, Ex.P76 and to sell the car he had given
an advertisement in the news paper along with his
telephone number. He also proved registration
certificate, mark-WW and Insurance Certificate
Ex.PW32/l and deposed that this car was in the name
of his wife Mrs.Reva Dutta.

1084. Accordingly, while identifying the
car, Ex.P76, in the court, he deposed that on
20.8.1995, some persons came to negotiate for the
purchase of his car including two Sikh Gentleman,
who after inspecting the vehicle, agreed to
purchase it for a consideration of Rs.32,000/- and
one of those persons disclosed his name as Basant
Singh, resident of Trans Jamuna and they left his
house saying that they will return back with the
sale consideration.

1085. He further deposed that in the
evening both of them again came to his flat and he
brought them in his drawing room and his wife also
came there and executed Form no. 2 9 and 30 and after
receiving the sale consideration, which was paid by
the companion of Basant Singh, a delivery receipt,
a cash receipt was also executed from said Basant
Singh, the original cash receipt and Form no. 30 and
29 were handed over to said Basant Singh along with
the car as well as all other documents of the car
including RC, Insurance and the delivery receipt
and photocopy of all the remaining documents was

756

kept by him.

1086. He further deposed that later on he
handed over original delivery receipt, Ex.PW32/2,
photo copy of cash receipt, Ex.PW32/4 and
photocopies of form no. 30 and 29, Ex.PW32/5 and
Ex.PW32/6 to the police, which were taken into
possession as per recovery memo, Ex.PW32/3. He also
identified the signatures of his wife on the
documents along with the signatures of the person
who had posed and signed as Basant Singh.

1087. He further deposed that on 1.9.1995,
he came to know that the car which he had sold, had
been used in the commission of assassination of
Sardar Beant Singh and accordingly he was called by
the Police and give the description of the person,
who had introduced himself as Basant Singh. On
5.9.1995, he along with his wife came to Chandigarh
and identified car No. DBA-9598, Ex.P-76 as per
the memo of identification, Ex.PW-32/7.

1088. He further stated that he can
identify those persons in the court and he
identified accused Jagtar Singh Tara as the person,
who had represented himself to be Basant Singh and
also deposed that he had signed delivery receipt,
Ex.PW32/2 as Basant Singh and these signatures have
been marked as Q-17. He was also asked to identify
the other person, who accompanied accused Jagtar

757

Singh Tara but then comes a drama enacted by
accused persons to conceal their identity, as on
18.12.1996 it was found that all the accused except
one were wearing identical spectacles and have got
their beard tied in the net.

1089. Faced with this situation, PW-32
stated that none of those two persons were wearing
spectacles or a tied beard. As such, the accused be
directed to remove the spectacles and net. However,
a dispute was raised by learned defence counsels on
this aspect and matter was adjourned for the other
day. However, prior to that PW-32 further deposed
that later on accused Jagtar Singh Tara had been
brought to his residence and had confirmed his
identity as the person from whom the car, Ex.P76
was purchased and he identified accused Jagtar
Singh Tara as the person to whom he sold the car
and who represented himself as Basant Singh and a
memo of identification, Ex.PW32/8 was prepared and
was signed by him in this regard and he further
deposed that he has identified the photographs of
other person, who accompanied Jagtar Singh Tara as
mark-DC/6 and put his signatures, Ex.PW32/9 in the
token of his identification.

1090. After this on the adjourned date, the
then Sessions Judge, Chandigarh directed the
accused persons to remove the spectacles and net of
their beard but they refused to do so and faced

758

with this situation, PW-32 stated that he can still
try to identify that person and thus all the
accused persons were lined up and then PW-32
identified accused Jagtar Singh Hawara as the other
Sikh youth, who had accompanied Jagtar Singh Tara
at the time of sale of this car and who was holding
the bag containing the money.

1091. This witness was cross examined by
the learned defence counsels for 5 days and the
learned defence counsel picking up some infirmities
in his statement from here and there, tried to
assail his testimony to be manipulated by the CBI
with a view that his car was never purchased by any
of these two accused persons. However, this
endeavour of learned defence counsels proved in
vain to do so.

1092. No doubt, this witness has admitted
that he was grilled and harassed by Delhi Police in
connection with this matter but this is not
sufficient to say that he has been motivated to
depose falsely. On the contrary, it was quite
natural particularly when the police came to know
that the car used in the commission of crime, is
owned by this witness and that is why he was called
and interrogated by the police to know the truth
and to pick a thread to unearth the deep rooted
conspiracy for the assassination of the then Chief
Minister, Punjab and others and this witness

759

admitted that on 3.9.1995, he has disclosed all the
facts to the Police party headed by Mr. Gupta from
CBI and when he was asked to produce documents,
those were not traceable and further deposed that
later on, when on 20.9.1995, the police brought
accused Jagtar Singh Tara to identify his house and
he handed over those documents. If it is so, the
plea of learned defence counsels that this witness
is procured witness and that there is no
explanation as to why this witness has not handed
over the documents to the police from 3.9.1995 to
20.9.1995, is without any basis.

1093. No doubt, Mr. Gupta, who has recorded
the statement of this witness has not been examined
but it makes no difference specially when PW-32 has
nowhere admitted that his statement was recorded by
Mr. Gupta. Similarly, this witness has nowhere
admitted that he was called by the CBI to produce
the documents located by him on 16.9.1995. On the
contrary, he explained that when on 20.9.1995 the
police brought Jagtar Singh Tara at his residence,
he also handed over those documents, which, by that
time, he had been able to locate. As such, the plea
of learned defence counsel that those documents
were fabricated in between, is also not
substantiated from any evidence or circumstance.

1094. Similarly, the objection of learned
defence counsel that the address given by accused

760

Jagtar Singh Tara in the assumed name of Basant
Singh, has not been verified, is also without any
consequence because the moot question was as to
whom the car has been actually sold and not as to
the authenticity of the address of that person.

1095. One of the plea raised by learned

defence counsel was that the register of Watchman,
which was being maintained to record the name of
the persons, who visited the Sahridaya Apartments,
where PW-32 was residing, has not been taken into
possession. However, after considering this plea
with the evidence, it comes out that no prejudice
has been caused to the case of the prosecution by
not doing so.

1096. At the same time, the defence itself

has examined one witness in defence to bring home
this fact but it boom ranged, when DW-20,
P.K.Ghosh, Executive Member of the Sahridaya
Apartment Society, deposed that no such register
was being maintained in the year 1995-96. If it is
so, the objection of the learned defence counsel
is answered automatically.

1097. Now comes the last objection of

learned defence counsels as to the identity of the
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh Tara
by this witness for the first time in the court,
without associating him in any test identification

761

parade .

1098. However, as per the proposition of

law, discussed above, this plea is also without any
basis because by now, it is settled proposition of
law that failure to hold test identification parade
does not make the evidence of the identification in
the court inadmissible, rather the same is
admissible being substantive evidence but it is
considered as a weak evidence.

1099. It is already held that it is well

settled law that there are certain exceptions to
the general rule that identification of the accused
for the first time in court is not admissible as
evidence and one of these exceptions is that where
the court is impressed by a particular witness,
whose testimony, it can safely rely, without such
or other corroboration and specially when a witness
had any particular reason to remember about the
identity of the accused or where the witness had a
chance to interact with the accused or had an
opportunity to notice the distinctive features of
the accused, which lends assurance to his testimony
in the court and in such circumstances, the
testimony of a witness regarding identification
even for the first time can be used as substantive
evidence and even sufficient to convict accused on
this ground. Similarly it is also settled that
there is no bar in showing photograph of suspects

762

during investigations to the witnesses to confirm
their identity special when those suspects are not
available for identification.

1100. Needless to say, all these principles
were summed up by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dana
Yadav Vs. Bihar's case (Supra), taking into
consideration the entire law on the matter
including some of the authorities relied upon by
the learned defence counsels as discussed above.

1101. Accordingly, in the present case, the
act and conduct of the accused persons itself shows
that PW-32 was in a position to identity them and
that is why they tried to conceal their identity by
camouflaging their features, by wearing similar
type of spectacles and by tying their beard with a
similar net and then by not removing the same
despite the orders of the court. At the same time,
PW-32 has explained that on 20.9.1995 itself, he
had identified the photograph of accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara, mark DC/6 with his signatures and
identified him as the second Sikh Gentleman.

1102. It is also proved on the file that by
that time, accused Jagtar Singh Hawara was not
arrested as he was evading his arrest and if it was
so, there was no question of conducting test
identification parade at that time. Similarly, it
is also explained by PW-32 that on 20.9.1995

763

accused Jagtar Singh Tara had identified him
his Apartment and in turn he also identified
accused as the purchaser of the car.

and
the

1103. Not even this, when a suggestion was

put to this witness that the CBI had shown these
accused persons to him and on the basis of that he
is identifying them, it was vehemently denied by
the witness. He has also denied the suggestion of
the learned defence consel that since his car has
been used in the commission of the crime and he was
tortured and kept in illegal custody and was
released only when he agreed to toe the story of
the sale of car to Basant Singh and his companions
as per the whims of CBI.

1104. On the contrary, he explained that on

1.9.1995 itself, he has disclosed all the facts
about the sale of car and the description of the
person, who had purchased the same and even a
sketch of that person was prepared by the National
Crime Record Bureau.

1105. Last but not the least, this witness

had the occasion to interact with the accused
persons while sitting in his drawing room for some

time and that was sufficient to notice the

distinctive features specially when the accused

were having a special feature of being Sikh

Gentleman, which itself is one of the parameter of

764

special and distinctive features.

1106. Thus, there are more than one reason
to rely upon the testimony of PW-32, as to the sale
of Car, Ex.P76 to the accused persons, specially
when it is supplemented by the facts disclosed by
accused Jagtar Singh Tara as well as accused
Balwant Singh in their confessions.

1107. At the same time, PW-166, T.R.Nehra,
a handwriting and document expert after comparing
the specimen signatures of accused Jagtar Singh
Tara in the name of Basant Singh, Ex.PW120/l to
Ex.PW120/5, which were taken by the CBI in the
presence of PW-120, P.C.Thakur with disputed
delivery letter Ex.PW32/2, as per his report
Ex.PW166/26 found that the guestioned signatures by
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara in the name of Basant
Singh on the original delivery receipt, Ex.PW32/2
are similar to the specimen signatures taken from
this accused in the name of Basant Singh.

1108. As stated earlier, the evidence of an
expert is a supporting evidence and in this case,
in view of the testimony of PW-166, the execution
of delivery receipt of the car by accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara, further corroborates the statement of
PW-32 .

1109. One more fact, which fortifies this

765

aspect is the act & conduct of accused Jagtar
Singh Tara in identifying the flat of PW-32
S.K.Dutta, and reciprocal identification by PW-32
of Jagtar Singh Hawara, as per the pointing out
memo Ex.PW32/8, in consequences of the disclosure
statement of this accused Ex.PW216/l. As per the
principles laid down in State Vs. Navjot Sandhu's
case (supra), it is now settled that the
identification of place, as discussed above, is
admissible in evidence as a conduct of accused of
accused Jagtar Singh under section 8 read with
Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

1110. In this regard, PW-216, Charanjit

Singh and PW-244, R.S.Dhankar, who has arrested
accused Jagtar Singh Tara, deposed that on
20.9.1995, accused Jagtar Singh Tara suffered
disclosure statement, Ex.PW216/l, in which he
disclosed that he and Jagtar Singh Hawara purchased
a Car from PW-32 and he can identify the house of
PW-32 and thereafter, he accordingly took the
Police Party Sahirdaya Apartments, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi and identified flat No. A-4/100 in the
presence of PW-32, as per the pointing out memo
Ex.PW32/A, vide which PW-32 has also identified
accused Jagtar Singh Tara as Basant Singh, who
purchased his Car and he also deposed that PW-32
also identified the photograph of Jagtar Singh
Hawara as the second companion and thereafter
accused Jagtar Singh Tara also confessed all these

766

facts in his confession Ex.PW86/6. This evidence
further corroborates the testimony of PW-32.

1111. In view of the above discussed, legal

and factual position, it is held that there is
over-whelming evidence on the file, which proves
that as per their plan, accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
and accused Jagtar Singh Tara purchased car no.
DBA-9598 from PW-32, S.K.Dutta and then kept the
same in the house of accused Paramjit Singh and
thereafter accused Jagtar Singh Tara brought it to
Chandigarh via Patiala and then it was used by them
for entering the Secretariat posing the same as an
official vehicle and to their bad luck the person
who has to remove the same i.e. accused Lakhwinder
Singh failed to do so and it was recovered by the
police and ultimately this car proved to be the
material link and it leads to unearth the entire
conspiracy and the identity and role of all the
main accused persons. As such the above discussed
circumstances clearly prove that accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara was the king-pin of the conspiracy and
all material actions and decisions leading to this
killing were his brain work and master-minded and
coordinated by him to fulfill the objective of
conspiracy successfully.

THE CASE AGAINST ACCUSED JAGTAR SINGH TARA

1112 . As discussed above, it comes out that

767

there are sufficient circumstances against accused
Jagtar Singh Tara, since declared a proclaimed
offender, to link him with this conspiracy although
for the limited purpose of section 299 Cr.PC.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 1 :

Confession of this accused.

1113. Firstly, it is proved on the file
that this accused has suffered a confession,
Ex.PW86/6, which is proved to be true and
voluntarily made as per the guidelines settled by
law and as per the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court. As such, this confession
clearly proves the role of this accused from the
stage, he joined the conspiracy till its execution
and is sufficient substantive evidence to link this
accused with this conspiracy.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 2 :

Purchase of car Ex.P76

1114. Secondly, as discussed and held
earlier, it is proved that as per the conspiracy,
this accused along with accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
purchased the car Ex.P-76, which was one of the
main inputs of this operation and brought it

768

Chandigarh and thereafter joined the remaining
accused persons till the execution of the objective
of the conspiracy and thus linked him with this
conspiracy to the hilt.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 3 . :

Identification of house of PW-32 and PW-
32 as the person from the car was
purchased in consequences of disclosure
statement.

1115. Thirdly, it is also proved on the
file that when this accused was arrested in
addition to the disclosure statement suffered by
this accused on 18.9.1995, he suffered another
disclosure statement Ex.PW216/l in the presence of
PW-216 and as per this disclosure statement, he
took the police party to Sahirdaya Apartments,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and identified the flat of
PW-32, in his presence as per the memo, Ex.PW-32/8
and this fact is admissible as act and conduct of
this accused under section 8 of the Evidence Act
and thus it proves that his confession in this
regard is proved to be true and duly corroborated
from the evidence led by the prosecution.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO. 4.

Identification of house of accused Nasib
Singh from where the RDX was brought.

1116. Fourthly, it is proved on the file

769

that on 18.9.1995, when accused Jagtar Singh Tara
was interrogated by PW-243, A.P.Singh, in the
presence of PW-80, Kirpal Singh s/o Diwan Singh, he
suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PW80/l in which
while admitting his association with the accused
persons and his role in the conspiracy as to how
the planning was made by accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara and how they purchased the car and brought
it to Patiala, he further disclosed that on
25.8.1995, he along with Jagtar Singh Hawara,
deceased Dilawar Singh, Balwant Singh and Paramjit
Singh started from Patiala in Car No. DBA-9598 for
Chandigarh and they came via Sudhar and on the way
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara asked him to divert the
car towards Village Jhingran Kalan as he was
driving the car and they accordingly reached there
and after some time, he brought two bags on bicycle
and kept the same in the car and after that all of
them came to Mohali and reached the house of
accused Gurmeet Singh and he disclosed that he can
identify and locate that house. PW-80, Kirpal Singh
has proved the making of this disclosure statement.

1117. In addition to this PW-243 further

deposed that after this accused Jagtar Singh Tara
led the Police party to Village Jhingran Kalan and
located the house from where the RDX was brought by
Jagtar Singh Hawara. No doubt, no pointing out memo
was prepared by PW-243 in this regard but it makes
no difference because the only relevant point,

770

which came out from the disclosure statement of
this accused is as to the identity of the house of
accused Nasib Singh, and which has been duly
substantiated on the file because PW-243 has
categorically stated that after reaching Village
Jhingran Kalan, accused Jagtar Singh Hawara had
pointed out the house from where Jagtar Singh
Hawara had brought the RDX and on enquiry, he came
to know that this house belongs to accused Nasib
Singh and thereafter he arrested accused Nasib
Singh. This act & conduct of accused Jagtar Singh
Tara is admissible u/s 8 of the Evidence Act as per
the proposition of law discussed above.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 5

Statement of PW-25 and PW-26 regarding
his absence from duties from 24.8.1995
to 31.8.1995 under suspicious

circumstances .

1118. One more circumstance, which links

this accused with this conspiracy is the stand of
PW-25 and PW-26, Mohan Raj Shekhar and his wife
Revati Raja Shekhar, with whom accused Jagtar Singh
Tara was working as driver. It is disclosed by
accused Jagtar Singh Tara in his confession that
after his association in this conspiracy and after
purchasing the car, the same was parked in the
house of accused Paramjit Singh because Jagtar

771

Singh Hawara told him that he will give him a coded
message to bring the car to Patiala as and when
required and for that purpose accused Jagtar Singh
Tara gave the telephone number of PW-25 and PW-2 6
with whom he was working as driver those days.

1119. Accordingly, PW-25 and PW-26 named
above, when stepped into the witness box deposed
that accused Jagtar Singh Tara was working as a
driver with them on their Ambassador Car and
identified accused Jagtar Singh Tara in the court
despite the fact that, when PW-25 deposed on
17.10.1996 all the accused persons attended the
court proceedings bearing same dress and same
turban except accused Nasib Singh, with an obvious
motive that they could not be identified by their
witnesses .

1120. After this, PW-26 Revati Raj Shekhar
deposed that on 23.8.1995 in the evening, she
received a telephonic call from a person, who
identified himself as Raj and when he called for
Jagtar Singh Tara, she told him that he had gone
out with her husband and then the caller told him
to convey to Tara that he should reach in the house
of his maternal uncle tomorrow.

1121. In addition to this, both these
witnesses also deposed that accused Jagtar Singh
Tara remained absent from his duty from 24.8.1995

772

to 31.8.1995 without any intimation to them and
without their consent and he resumed his duties
only on the morning of 1.9.1995 and when he was
asked about his absence, he failed to give any
explanation .

1122. In addition to this PW-25 also
disclosed that on 1.9.1995, he received a call for
Jagtar Singh Tara from the same caller Raj and then
he called Jagtar Singh Tara, who talked with that
caller and thereafter on the evening of 2.9.1995,
Jagtar Singh Tara told that he has to go to Ropar
for some court case and then he left and never
joined back his duties.

1123. Both these witnesses were cross
examined by learned defence counsels with an
intention that Jagtar Singh Tara was never employed
by them as a driver nor they ever received any
message for him but this endeavour proved in vain
as no motive or enmity has been attributed gua
these witnesses for deposing falsely. On the
contrary, PW-25 explained that Baldev Singh and
Jaswinder Singh, who were brothers of Jagtar Singh
Tara were working at a Taxi stand situated near his
house and they used to drive his car periodically
and in the year 1993, he had kept Jagtar Singh Tara
as a regular driver.

773

1124. Not even this, it was also explained
by this witness that the act & conduct of accused
Jagtar Singh Tara was very excellent till December,
1994 when his behaviour suddenly changed as he
started wearing a kirpan and also started leaving
the car alone and used to remain away for hours
together. Thus, the testimony of both these
witnesses remained unrebutted and there is nothing
on the file to disbelieve them. Thus the stand of
both these witnesses disclosed that as confessed by
accused Jagtar Singh Tara in his disclosure
statement after purchasing the car, he took the car
to Patiala and thereafter joined the conspiracy
till its execution from 24.8.1995 to 31.8.1995 and
then resumed his duties on 1.9.1995 and the absence
of this accused from his duties for the above
period, which was the main period, when the final
shape to the conspiracy was given and it was
executed. Thus this circumstance clinches the whole
issue as far as the role and part of accused Jagtar
Singh Tara is concerned.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO. 6

Confession in the Court.

1125. Last but not the least there is
direct evidence by way of confession of this
accused before the court. In this regard as

774

discussed earlier, in the application moved by
Jagtar Singh Tara on 6.5.1999, he admitted his
role in the conspiracy. He further admitted that he
was part and parcel of the conspiracy along with
deceased Dilawar Singh, who had killed S.Beant
Singh. Even in the application filed on 2.9.1998,
he admitted the same facts. Thus admission of this
accused before this court clinches the entire issue
and sufficient to link him with this case to its
entirety .

( End of Vol. Ill )

775

Vol . IV

THE CASE AGAINST ACCUSED SHAMSHER SINGH

1126. As discussed above, it is alleged by
prosecution that during the interrogation of
accused Jagtar Singh Tara, he disclosed that the
RDX used in the crime was brought by accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara with the help of accused Shamsher
Singh. However, he could not be arrested till the
filing of the first charge sheet and only after
that the CBI came to know that he has been arrested
by the Punjab Police in some case registered at
Rajpura Police station.

1127. He was accordingly arrested in this
case on 11.12.1995 and thereafter he expressed his
desire to make a confession and he was accordingly
produced before PW-103, D.K.Sharma, and he suffered
a confession, Ex.PW103/G in which he disclosed all
the details as to his role in the conspiracy.

1128. Even prior to this PW-107, Sapinder
Singh @ pappu, whose truck was used for bringing
the RDX also disclosed these facts to the CBI and
his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C was also recorded
before PW-108, Sh.Paramjit Singh, then Metropolitan
Magistrate, Tis Hajari, New Delhi.

1129. As such, now let us scan the evidence

776

of prosecution to see whether the prosecution is
able to bring home the role of this accused in this
conspiracy from its initiation till its execution.
Accordingly, the evidence of the prosecution when
scanned and analysed within the principles settled
above, it comes out that the prosecution has proved
the following circumstances against accused
Shamsher Singh to link him with this conspiracy.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO : 1

Confession of accused Shamsher Singh
before PW-103 D.K.Sharma, Metropolitan
Magistrate, Delhi.

1130. As discussed above, while considering
the making of confession by this accused, it is
proved on the file that this accused has suffered
the confession, Ex.PW103/G before PW-103, which is
made by him voluntarily without any pressure,
threat or coercion etc., as per the guidelines laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the law of the
land .

1131. Even, it is also held that the
confession of this accused can be used as
substantive evidence qua him although it can not be
considered as an evidence against the other accused
persons under the provisions of Section 10 of the
Evidence Act.

777

1132. As such, let us consider what is the

evidentiary value of the confession of this
accused, first of all qua him and then against his
co-accused persons under section 30 of the Evidence
Act .

To decide this controversy, the first
point to be seen is that what is the affect of
retraction of confession by this accused. In this
regard, it comes out that this accused was arrested
on 11.12.1995 and his confession was recorded on
16.12.1995 and a supplementary charge sheet was
filed against him in the court of the learned Area
Magistrate and after supplying the copy of charge
sheet etc. to him, vide order dt . 19 . 12 . 1995, the
case against Shamsher Singh was also committed to
the Court of Sessions.

1133. Thus, this accused was having

sufficient notice about the contents of the charge
sheet, which was mainly based on his confession.
However, despite this, he has neither moved an
application to retract from confession before the
Area Magistrate nor before the court of Sessions,
when he appeared there after the commitment of the
case. On the contrary, for the first time, on
20.2.1996, he moved an application for retraction
from his confession along with accused Balwant
Singh and Jagtar Singh Tara, alleging that his
Advocate has disclosed him that he had made some

778

confession but he has never made any such
confession and not bound by the same. He also
alleged that the CBI and Punjab Police had kept him
in illegal custody and tortured him and falsely
implicated him in this case.

1134. However, as far as the plea of
learned defence counsel for Shamsher Singh as well
as of Shamsher Singh himself, as to his illegal
custody, torture, etc., is concerned, while
deciding the dispute of making of confession by
this accused, it is also held that this confession
is made by him voluntarily without any pressure,
torture, inducement etc. despite so many objections
of learned defence counsels including some
technical lacunas, all of which were held to be
without any legal force. Thus, on this ground the
making of confession by this accused can not be
disbelieved .

1135. Even otherwise, while moving the
application dated 20.2.1996 and while retracting
from the confession, this accused has no where
alleged that why and under what circumstances, he
is retracting from his confession and he has also
failed to allege that he was never produced before
any Magistrate for recording his confession.

1136. At the same time, PW-103 has
categorically deposed that on 16.12.1995, when he

779

took up the matter again after giving time to this
accused to rethink, he again cautioned the accused
that he is not bound to make any confession, if he
is under any pressure, threat etc. and even if he
will not make any statement, he will not be sent
on police remand and if he still intends to make a
confession, then even if he will subsequently
retract the same, it will be used against him.

1137. However, despite this caution, this

accused expressed his desire to make the confession
and only thereafter the same was recorded. Thus,
the alleged plea of accused while retracting from
his confession is neither justified nor it is
supported by any material circumstances, specially
when it has not been retracted at the first
available opportunity to him, when he was produced
before the Area Magistrate after the commitment of
the case and then in the court of Sessions. If it
is so, this retraction is not a legal retraction in
the eyes of law and liable to be discarded.

1138. As discussed earlier in Shankaria Vs.

Rajasthan's case (Supra), It was settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that where the confession was
not retracted at the earliest opportunity but after
lapse of long time and where the accused, while
retracting his confession, did not say that he was
tutored by the Police to make confession nor he
gave any explanation and the confession shows that

780

there was nothing improbable or unbelievable in the
same, on the contrary, the same is appeared to be
spontaneous, containing all the details about the
manner of the commission of crime, which only the
perpetrator of the crime could know and lastly the
confession is further corroborated in several
material particular from reliable circumstantial
evidence, it is admissible and sufficient to bring
home the charge to the accused.

1139. This very proposition of law was
again reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State
of Maharashtra Vs. Damu and others V(2000) S.L.T.
194. Thus, there is nothing on the record to say
that this confession is legally retracted and thus
not admissible in evidence.

1140. As far as the question as to whether
this confession is true and its truthfulness
corroborated by the evidence, is concerned, it may
be recalled that once the authenticity of the
confession has been proved to the hilt and when the
facts stated in this confession were compared with
the evidence on record, in the light of surrounding
circumstances and the probabilities of the case,
the confession seems to be a probable list of
events and it proves the previous act and conduct
of accused Shamsher Singh, leading to his
association with accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and
then giving his consent to help him in this

781

operation, reiterating that he also intends to kill
Beant Singh. Lastly, his recalling and reminding
Jagtar Singh Hawara to complete the operation, is
sufficient to say that it is true and probable.

1141. At the same time, the facts disclosed
by this accused, as to how he was associated with
Jagtar Singh Hawara before hatching this conspiracy
are the facts, which only accused Shamsher Singh
could know. Some of the facts disclosed by him in
his confession were never disclosed by any other
accused, which are relevant only for his
association with accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and
his confidence in him.

1142. Lastly, an endeavour has also been
made by learned defence counsel by challenging the
evidentiary value of confession, by saying that all
that he had said is that he agreed to accompany
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara in the truck of PW-107
Sapinder Singh to Ajnala for bringing the RDX. But
apart from this, he has nowhere confessed that he
also became part and parcel of this conspiracy and
agreed to help him only under that plan.

1143. However, this plea of learned defence
counsel shows that somewhere in the corner of his
heart, accused Shamsher Singh knows that he has
himself suffered a confession giving vivid details
of the conspiracy and his role and he tried to

782

wriggle out of the same firstly by making a delayed
retraction and then by challenging the authenticity
of recording of the confession on all available
legal lacunas and lastly by disputing its
evidentiary value. Thus, this aspect further shows
that the confession of this accused is true.

1144. Not even this, a last minute plea of
learned defence counsel that the accused has
suffered the confession to avoid an evil of
temporal nature, is also held to be not legally
tenable and if it is so, it can be read into
evidence as a substantive proof, as far as this
accused is concerned and sufficient to convict him
being part and parcel of this conspiracy and
intentionally helping his co-accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara in bringing RDX from a place near Ajnala and
and then by keeping it in his house and all this
was done by this accused fully knowing about the
purpose of this act and by supporting the objective
knowing consequences of his participation.

CIRCUMSTACE NO. 2

Testimony of PW-107 and PW-108 regarding
involvement of accused Shamsher Singh in
the conspiracy relating to bringing of RDX
by this accused with accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara and keeping the same in his house .

1145. It is alleged by the prosecution that

783

during investigations, on 14.11.1995 PW-107,
Sapinder Singh @ Pappu, who is the owner-cum-driver
of Truck No. PB-12A-7947, made a statement that his
Truck has been used by accused Shamsher Singh @
Shera for bringing RDX without informing him his
real intentions till the same was brought.

1146. However, it is alleged by the defence
that PW-107, who has not supported the prosecution
in this regard, had been tortured and kept in
illegal custody and forced to make the statement
against accused Shamsher Singh u/s 161 Cr.P.C as
well as u/s 164 Cr.P.C, before PW-108 and from the
facts & circumstances of the case, this fact is
duly proved, as a result, the testimony of this
witness clearly proves that accused Shamsher Singh
has been falsely implicated by the CBI after
concocting a story of bringing of RDX by him.

1147. In view of the rival contentions
mentioned above, let us scan the evidentiary value
of statement of PW-107. Admittedly, this witness
when appeared in the witness box, after admitting
himself to be the owner and driver of Truck bearing
registration No. PB-12A-7947 and his association
and relationship with accused Shamser Singh @
Shera, failed to support the story of the
prosecution as projected through him and as such he
was declared hostile to the prosecution and was
allowed to be cross examined by the Public

784

Prosecutor .

1148. It is argued by the learned Public
Prosecutor that from the cross examination of this
witness, it is proved on the file that this witness
has been won over by the accused persons specially
when admittedly, he is a cousin brother of accused
Shamsher Singh and he was also prosecuted for
harboring the accused persons along with his
family. If it is so, let us go through the total
statement of this witness to see, where it leads
and how much.

1149. As stated earlier, this witness when
stepped into the witness box alleged that he never
took his Truck to Ajnala side for bringing anything
at the instance of accused Shamsher Singh @ Shera
or Jagtar Singh Hawara and he never brought any
explosive in his Truck to Village Ukasi Jattan,
Rajpura and on this stand this witness was declared
to be hostile to the prosecution for suppressing
the truth intentionally and was allowed to be cross
examined by it.

1150. Accordingly after going through the
cross examination of this witness by the learned
Public Prosecutor, it comes out that as argued by
the learned Public Prosecutor, this witness has
been won over by the accused and was taking the
side of the accused just to help them for so many

785

reasons. First of all, it is admitted case of this
witness that accused Shamsher Singh alias Shera is
his cousin brother and he also admitted that
accused Shamsher Singh is resident of Village Ukasi
Jattan whereas accused Shamsher Singh has denied
this fact by alleging that he is actually resident
of Village Kamar Pur, Police Station Sadar, Tehsil
Rajpura, District Patiala.

1151. Then PW-107 further admitted that
Bhagwant Singh and Dal jit Singh brothers of
Shamsher Singh alias Shera also used to work as
drivers and as such there was a constant
association between all of them. Not even this, it
is also admitted case of this witness that on
7.11.1995, he was arrested in a case for harboring
accused Jagtar Singh Hawaara along with the family
members of accused Shamsher Singh and it is also
clear from his testimony, when he deposed before
the court, that case was still pending against him.
Apart from this, he has admitted some more facts,
which go to show that he is deposing falsely only
with an intention to shield the accused for one
reason or the other.

1152. First of all, in the opening lines of
his cross examination, it is admitted by him that
his statement, Ex.PW107/l was recorded by the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 15.11.1995 and it
bears his signatures at point to *A' to ^D' of this

786

statement. Not even this, he further admitted that
the Magistrate had read over his statement to him
and then he had signed the same. Needless to say,
he also admitted that he was produced before the
Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi, on the next day,
when his statement was recorded by the CBI under
section 161 Cr.PC on 14.11.1995.

1153. Then he admitted that before
recording his statement, the Magistrate, who in the
present case was PW-108, questioned him and
recorded his preliminary statement and also asked
him as to what had brought him to court and he
replied that he had come to the court to make a
statement and lastly when the Magistrate asked him
that whether he wants to make the statement
voluntarily, he replied in affirmative.

1154. Above all, he also admitted that the
Magistrate before recording his statement, asked
him whether he is going to make the statement under
threat, pressure and he replied that he is going to
make it voluntarily and then he made the statement
before the Magistrate. However, he took a last
minute stand that he made the statement at the
instance of the police. Needless to say, the
statement recorded by PW-108, Ex.PW-107/1, was read
over and explained to the witness in the court when
he took this stand.

787

1155. In view of the above mentioned stand
of the witness, it is proved that this witness had
made a statement before PW-108, Sh.Paramjit Singh,
then Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi, Ex.PW-107/1. As such the question comes
whether the statement of this witness recorded by
PW-108 is admissible in evidence being recorded as
per the procedure established by law and whether
the denying of the same by PW-107 alleging it to
have been made under the pressure of the police is
without any basis?

1156. To know this aspect, let us take the
requirements of the law to record the statement of
a witness. Section 164 of the Cr.PC provides the
procedures for recording the confessions and
statements and sub-section ( 1 ) of this Section says
that any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial
Magistrate may, whether or not, he has jurisdiction
in the case, record any confession or statement
made to him in the course of investigation under
this Chapter and then sub-sections (2 ) , (3) and (4)
provides certain safeguards which a Magistrate is
required to take into consideration for recording
the confession of an accused.

1157. Whereas sub-section ( 5 ) provides the
procedure for recording the statement of a witness
and it say that any statement other than a
confession made under sub-section (1), shall be

788

recorded in such manner hereinafter provided for
recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the
Magistrate, best fitted to the circumstance of the
case and the Magistrate shall have the power to
administer oath to the person whose statement is so
recorded .

1158. Thus the above mentioned procedure
clearly shows that as far as the recording of
statement of a witness under Section 164 Cr.PC is
concerned, no specific procedure or guidelines
have been provided. However it is settled
proposition of law that while recording the
statement of a witness under section 164 Cr.PC, the
Magistrate is required to see that the witness is
going to make a statement voluntarily without any
threat, inducement or pressure and only after
satisfying himself about this, the statement can be
recorded .

1159. Accordingly in the present case, when
the statement made by PW-108 was analysed, it comes
out that he has taken all the necessary precautions
before recording the statement of this witness and
the same was recorded only after satisfying that
the witness is not under any pressure, inducement
or threat.

1160. In this regard, PW-108, Sh.Paramjit
Singh, then Metropolitan Magistrate deposed that

789

when PW107, Sapinder Singh alias Pappu was produced
before him for recording his statement under
section 164 Cr.PC, as per the application, Ex.PW-
108/1, he after sending the police personnel out of
the court, called the witness in his chamber and
questioned him, as per the preliminary examination,
Ex. PW-107/1/E and put certain questions to know the
state of mind of the witness, as per the details
Ex. PW-107/1/F and when he was satisfied that the
witness is going to make a statement without any
pressure or threat etc. only then the same was
recorded. If it is so, there is nothing on the file
to say that the statement made by PW-107 before PW-
108 was under the threat of the police, as alleged
by PW-107.

1161. When PW-108 was cross examined by the

learned defence counsel for accused Shamsher Singh
and others, it was suggested to him that whether he
enquired from Sapinder Singh as to for how many
days, he was retained by the CBI and the witness
answered that there was no need of making any such
enquiry as Sapinder Singh was produced for making a
statement in the capacity of a witness. He has
categorically denied the suggestion of the learned
defence counsel that PW-107, Sapinder Singh,
brought to his notice that he was in the custody of
the CBI for the number of days and had been
tortured. Had it been so, PW-108 would have
mentioned it in his preliminary enquiry.

790

1162. At the same time, no motive or
animosity has been shown qua this witness for
recording a false statement of the witness under
the pressure of CBI . As such despite incisive cross
examination of PW-108, his stand that he has
recorded the statement of PW-107 after recording
his satisfaction as to the voluntariness of the
same, remained unrebutted and if it is so, the
stand of PW-108 clearly shows that as alleged by
the prosecution, PW-107 has been won over for the
obvious reasons as mentioned above and if it is so,
no benefit of his denial of the facts stated by him
before PW-108, can be given to the accused persons.

1163. Above all, as mentioned above, PW-107
has failed to justify his stand of making the
statement before PW-108 under any inducement or
threat. Needless to say, it is undisputed case of
the prosecution that this witness was arrested in a
case registered under section 212 and 216 IPC along
with accused Shamsher Singh for harbouring accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara and those offences were
bailable offences and as is clear from the copy of
the judgment Ex.DX/1, PW-107, Sapinder Singh was on
bail in that case and if it is so, there is no
question of his illegal custody with the police or
CBI. It is another matter that he and Shamsher
Singh and others have been acquitted in the above
case vide judgment Ex.DX/1 but it has no bearing on

791

this case specially when it is nowhere held in that
case that this witness was tortured or harassed and
falsely implicated in that case to pressurise him
in this case.

1164. As far as the plea of learned counsel
for the accused that this witness has moved the
Hon'ble High Court against the harassment by the
CBI as per the petition, copy of which is Ex.PW-
107/2, is concerned, that petition when filed
before the Hon'ble High Court, was disposed of at
the motion hearing itself and the Hon'ble High
Court ordered that the respondents i.e. the State
of Punjab, S.S.P Ropar and S.H.O P.S.Kharar, will
enforce the provisions of Section 160 Cr.PC
strictly and the petitioner PW-107 could not be
summoned in connection with any enguiry etc.
without following the provisions of section 160
Cr.PC.

1165. At the same time, this petition has
been filed by the witness in the year 1998 and by
that time, his statement in the case has already
been recorded before PW-108 and there is no
explanation on the file as to how this petition has
any relevancy with the present case and how it can
be considered as a ground to comment on the making
of the statement by him before PW-108.

1166. Last but not the least, PW-107

792

further admitted that after making the statement
before PW-108 on 15.11.1995 till 3.2.2000, when his
statement was recorded in this court, he never
moved any application with any authority as to his
illegal custody or harassment or making of
statement before PW-108 at the instance of police.
At the same time, he had also never approached any
other judicial authority for recording his
statement under duress and even in the petition
filed by him in the Hon'ble High Court, he has
nowhere alleged so. Thus the fact remains that
there is nothing on the file to disbelieve the
stand taken by PW-107 before PW-108 relating to the
facts of this case.

1167. As is clear from the copy of

judgment Ex.DX/1 and as admitted by this witness,
he is owner of truck no. PB-12-A-7947 and it is
clear that this truck was taken into possession by
the Rajpura Police on 7.11.1995 vide FIR no. 127
dated 7.11.1995. Even when the contents of the
statement recorded by the CBI and PW-108 were put
to him, he deposed that he had disclosed to the CBI
that in the month of August 1998, his truck was
attached with Lehal & Co. Lalru for transportation
of gas cylinders and it was parked inside the
factory at Lalru loaded with empty cylinders. He
also admitted that he disclosed to the CBI that
Bhagwant Singh, who is the brother of accused
Shamsher Singh, was employed as a driver on the

793

truck .

1168. He further admitted that he also
disclosed to the CBI that when he returned back
from Lalru, Dal jit Singh told him that Shamsher
Singh alias Shera had come and asked him that he
(Shamsher Singh) had to bring some urgent household
goods and he (PW-107) should remain on the truck
and met him.

1169. He also admitted that after sometime,
accused Shamsher Singh came there and told the same
facts and asked him to take the truck to Amritsar.
In this way, he has admitted all the facts recorded
by the CBI in his statement to show as to how he
took his truck to Rajpura with Shamsher Singh and
how Jagtar Singh Hawara joined them and lastly how
they brought two bags from a Village near Ajnala
and then they came to know that it was RDX. These
very facts were disclosed by this witness before
PW018 on oath. Although he alleged that he was
forced to make such statement but at one stage, he
volunteered that Dal jit Singh had never accompanied
them with the truck and as such there is no
question of dropping him on the way in Village
Ukasi Jattan.

1170. Above all, as stated earlier, it is
admitted case of this witness that he along with
Shamsher Singh was challaned and they were

794

prosecuted in this jail by the learned CJM
Chandigarh and when he deposed that case was still
pending and accused Shamsher Singh used to meet him
during the proceedings. If it is so, the
apprehension of the prosecution that this witness
has been pressurised and forced to depose in favour
of the accused is well founded. At th same time,
the prosecution has already got recorded the
statement of PW-107 through PW-108 which also shows
that now he has been won over.

1171. As far as the case law relied upon by

the learned defence counsel on this point is
concerned, in Balak Ram Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1974
SC 1265, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the
evidence of witnesses cannot be discarded on the
plea that their statements were recorded under
section 164 Cr.PC. However it was a case where the
witness has supported the prosecution during the
trial as per the facts disclosed before the
Magistrate under section 164 Cr.PC and on those
facts, it was held that such witnesses feel tied to
their previous statement given on oath and have
theoritical freedom to depart from the earlier
version, a prosecution for perjury could be a price
of that freedom and as such, it was held that the
salient rule of caution must always be borne in
mind while appreciating the evidence of such
witness. Similar principle was reiterated by the
Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bolum Bhaskra

795

Rao Vs. State of A. P. 1985 Cr.L.J.32.

1172. However, in the present case, PW-107
has not supported his stand as taken by him before
PW-108. On the contrary, he chose to toe the line
of the accused persons fully knowing that he has
already made a statement before PW-108 and also
failed to wriggle out from that statement.
Resultantly, as stated by PW-108, this witness has
admitted that accused Shamsher Singh, who is his
cousin brother, asked him to provide his truck to
him, for bringing some household articles from a
Village near Amritsar and on the way, accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara joined them along with another
person and thereafter they reached to a Village
near Ajnala and accused Jagtar Singh Hawara brought
two bags and then they returned back to his Village
Ukasi Jattan and only then PW-107 came to know that
there is RDX in the bag and accused Shamsher Singh
also threatened him not to disclose this to
anybody .

1173. Incidentally, by now it is settled
proposition of law that in the event of a portion
of evidence not being consistent with the
statements given u/s 161 Cr.P.C and the witness
stands declared hostile, that does not, however,
mean and imply total rejection of evidence. The
portion, which stands in favour of the prosecution
can be accepted subject to a close scrutiny of the

796

over all statement. In this regard, we can refer to
the observation made by the Apex Court in State of
U.P. Vs. Ramesh Par sad, AIR, 1996, Supreme Court,
2766, as well as Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of
Haryana, AIR, 2002, Supreme Court, page 3217.

117 4. Similarly in Bhagwan Singh Vs. State

of Haryana, AIR, 1976, Supreme Court, page 202, the

Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the above settled
principle of law and held that mere fact that a
witness is declared hostile by the party calling
him and allowed to be cross examined does not make
him a unreliable witness so as to exclude his
evidence from the consideration altogether. The
evidence, which comes in favour of prosecution is
admissible in trial and there is no legal bar to
base a conviction upon such a testimony if
corroborated by other reliable evidence.

1175. Not even this, in the present case,

PW-107 has not only supported the theory of
prosecution, when he was cross examined, on all
material facts, but his stand is further
corroborated by the evidence of PW-108, who has
further proved that the statement made by PW-107
before him u/s 164 Cr.P.C was the true account of
the facts disclosed by PW-107. And this is also
supported by the confession of accused Shamsher
Singh, as such, the stand of accused in his
confession and by the witness before this court

797

admitting material facts supplement each other.

1176. As far as certain objections raised
by the learned defence counsel as to the
authenticity of the statement of this witness
through PW-107 is concerned, again there is no
force in those grounds. No doubt, the CBI has not
apprehended the truck of PW-107 in this case, but
it makes no difference because it is proved on the
file that the truck of PW-107 was already
apprehended by the police on 7.11.1995 and PW-107
was never a party in bringing the RDX. On the
contrary, he was never informed or knowing the real
purpose for which his truck was obtained by accused
Shamsher Singh and as such there was no need to
take the truck in custody in this case.

1177. As far as the plea of learned defence
counsel that the other two persons, who allegedly
accompanied accused Shamsher Singh and Jagtar Singh
Hawara in the truck, namely Dalbir Singh and Deva
Nand @ Bhaia, have neither been cited as a witness
nor has been examined, is concerned, again, there
is no force in this plea because in the
supplementary charge sheet no.6-A filed against the
accused, Shamsher Singh, PW Dal jit Singh, who is
none-else but the real brother of accused Shamsher
Singh, is also cited as a witness and it is further
alleged that other witness Deva Nand @ Bhaia had
left the job of PW-107.

798

1178. Not even this, during a trial the
prosecution tried to summon PW Dal jit Singh but his
summons remained unserved on one pretext or the
others. However, the statement of this witness
recorded by the CBI u/s 161 Cr.P.C, is part and
parcel of supplementary charge sheet filed against
Shamsher Singh, Ex.PW248/A, in which PW Dal jit
Singh has also deposed about the taking of truck of
PW-107 by accused Jagttar Singh Hawara with a
further explanation that although he and Deva Nand
@ Bhaia accompanied them in the truck but on the
way both of them were directed to got down from the
truck. No doubt, this statement cannot be read into
evidence but it shows that this witness was
associated in the investigation and disclosed about
the whereabouts of other witness Deva Nand alias
Bhaia as not traceable.

1179. He also explained that Deva Nand @
Bhaia, who was the cleaner on the truck, had
already left the job and his address is not known.
If it is so, there is sufficient explanation on the
file for the non-examination of these witnesses.
Above all, as discussed earlier, the non-
examination of these witnesses has no affect on the
case of the prosecution qua this aspect, which is
otherwise proved on the file.

1180. As far as the plea of this learned

799

defence counsel for this accused that neither
Jagtar Singh Tara nor accused Balwant Singh have
disclosed the name of accused Shamsher Singh as
conspirator, is concerned, there is no force in
this plea also because first of all, the confession
of Balwant Singh was recorded on 23.1.1996 and by
that time, accused Balwant Singh was knowing that
accused Shamsher Singh has already been arrested in
this case and as such he intentionally failed to
name him in the conspiracy although he indirectly
admitted that RDX was arranged by Jagtar Singh
Hawara .

1181. Besides this, it is also proved that

accused Balwant Singh in his confession nowhere
disclosed as to how the RDX was procured. On the
contrary, he confessed that accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara, when met him at Patiala somewhere in the
first week of July, 1995, disclosed that he will
prepare a belt bomb and thereafter he (Jagtar Singh
Hawara) met him only on or about 10 or 12 August
1995 which means that even accused Balwant Singh
was not knowing that as to how and from where
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara procured the
explosives. If it is so, there is no guestion of
naming accused Shamsher Singh by him.

1182. Similarly accused Jagtar Singh Tara

has also confessed that after giving his consent to
help accused Jagtar Singh Hawara in this operation

800

in July 1995, he met Jagtar Singh Hawara only on
20.8.1995, when they purchased the car and if it is
so, by that time, the RDX was already procured by
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and therefore there was
no question of knowing this fact by Jagtar Singh
Tara. As such this plea proved in vain to provide
any relief to accused Shamsher Singh. On the other
hand, all these facts show that Jagtar Singh Hawara
intentionally concealed these facts from the other
accused persons.

1183. As far as the plea of the learned
defence counsel that there is no link evidence on
the file to say that accused Shamsher Singh,
participated in this conspiracy knowing its purpose
and he merely helped Jagtar Singh Hawara in
providing the truck and as such it cannot be said
that he was part and parcel of the conspiracy, is
concerned, no doubt, as per the law discussed
above, the prosecution is obliged to show that
there was a positive agreement in the mind of two
or more persons and there was a meeting of minds to
do an unlawful act by putting their heads together.

1184. However, in this case there is
positive evidence on the file which shows that
accused Shamsher Singh joined the conspiracy fully
knowing its purpose and aided his co-conspirators
in that direction with a complete agreement to do
this unlawful act. In view of the confession of

801

accused Shamsher Singh, it is further proved that
he was knowing accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, since
the year 1993, which shows that this accused was
having a bona fide belief in his mind that by
killing Beant Singh, the feelings of Sikhs will be
healed up for atrocities committed by S. Beant Singh
and for comparing himself with the Sikh Gurus.

1185. Not even this, his confession further
shows that he also met Jagtar Singh Hawara on
different occasions in this regard and lastly on
8.8.1995, accused Jagtar Singh Hawara asked him to
arrange a truck to procure the explosives and
accused Shamsher Singh arranged the truck of PW-107
and accompanied him and brought RDX and kept the
same in his house. He also admitted that later on,
after two days, accused Jagtar Singh Hawara took
the RDX from his house on a Bajaj Chetak scooter.

1186. Not even this, he also confessed that
on 24.8.1995 Jagtar Singh Hawara again came to his
Tubewell and stayed with him and he again reminded
him about the target and Hawara promised him that
it will be done shortly.

1187. In view of the above discussed legal
and factual position it is held that the testimony
of PW-108 coupled with the admissions made by PW-
107 clearly spells out that accused Shamsher Singh
was part and parcel of this conspiracy and he

802

brought RDX along with accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
fully knowing that it will be used for killing
Beant Singh and if it is so, the facts disclosed by
this accused in his confession are duly
corroborated and go to prove a positive agreement
in the mind of this accused with the other accused
persons and specially with accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara and he knowingly joined the conspiracy and
helped his conspirators in achieving the purpose of
conspiracy .

CASE AGAINST ACCUSED LAKHWINDER
SINGH AND GURMEET SINGH.

1188. The poser for consideration being
identical and co-related, the case of the
prosecution, against both these accused persons is
being taken together as it is alleged by the
prosecution that the role of both these accused
persons is similar from the stage they joined the
conspiracy till its execution. As such in order to
avoid repetition, it will be in the fitness of
things to deal them jointly.

1189. As discussed above, it is alleged by
the prosecution that both these accused persons,
who were the old friends of accused Balwant Singh
and Dilawar Singh, joined this conspiracy on the
asking of both of them and they helped them in
different ways, during the stage of preparation as

803

well as its execution. Accused Lakhwinder Singh,
who at the time of this occurrence, was working in
the Intelligence Wing of Punjab Police, was
associated to know the security arrangements and
the movements of the Chief Minister and at the same
time, he was having a free access to the
Secretariat and could easily arrange accessibility
for his co-accused.

1190. Similarly accused Gurmeet Singh was

associated in the conspiracy to use his room for
preparations as well as for shelter and secondly,
he, being an Electrical Engineer, was expert in
electric field and helped the accused to prepare
the circuit of the belt bomb, which is otherwise a
risky work for a lay man.

1191. Accordingly after considering the

evidence of the prosecution against both these
accused persons, as per the circumstances relating
to them and after considering the rival
contentions, it comes out that there are following
circumstances against both these accused persons,
which go to prove that both these accused persons
were part and parcel of this conspiracy and did
different acts of omission and commission to
facilitate its execution and to achieve their
ob j ective .

CIRCUMSTANCE NO.l

804

Association of these accused persons with
accused Balwant Singh and deceased Dilawar
Singh and joining the conspiracy.

1192. It is already held that accused
Gurmeet Singh, Balwant Singh, deceased Dilawar
Singh and Lakhwinder Singh were all residents of
the same locality in Patiala and thus were known to
each other and were also associated with each other
since long time and were very close to each other.
However as argued by the learned defence counsel,
the moot guestion is, whether the association of
both these accused persons, with Balwant Singh and
Dilawar Singh, is sufficient to link them with this
conspiracy .

1193. As far as the association and its
thickness is concerned, both these accused have
denied their association with accused Balwant Singh
but PW-95, Tejinder Pal Singh, an old frind of
Balwant Singh, has already deposed that accused
Gurmeet Singh, deceased Dilawar Singh, Lakhwinder
Singh and Balwant Singh, were old friends and
after identifying all these accused persons except
Dilawar Singh, he further deposed that being old
friends and natives of the same locality, they were
concerned with each other.

1194. Not even this, he further deposed
that when accused Balwant Singh confessed this

805

occurrence before him and PW-94, he has
categorically named both these accused persons i.e.
Gurmeet Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, being part and
parcel of this conspiracy with all the details, how
it was hatched and how it was planned and executed
and when this witness was cross examined by accused
Balwant Singh, he alleged that the facts disclosed
by this witness in the court, are correct except
against accused Gurmeet Singh, who was never
associated in this conspiracy and has been falsely
implicated, only because of the fact that he is an
old friend of deceased Dilawar Singh. However this
suggestion of Balwant Singh was denied by PW-95 and
he reiterated the role of accused Gurmeet Singh in
this conspiracy as disclosed and confessed before
him by accused Balwant Singh.

1195. One more circumstance, which proves

the association of both these accused persons with
accused Balwant Singh and deceased Dilawar Singh,
is that PW-99, Chamkaur Singh deposed that on the
morning of 31.8.1995, when Dilawar Singh and
Balwant Singh were about to leave his house, both
these accused, Lakhwinder Singh and Gurmit Singh,
reached there and joined them and then all of them
went away in the car, Ex.P76. No doubt, during his
cross examination, he admitted that he had not seen
these accused persons while talking with Balwant
Singh and Dilawar Singh but it does not mean that
he had not seen them while accompanying Balwant

806

Singh and Dilawar Singh, specially when he was
already knowing both Lakhwinder Singh and Gurmit
Singh, even if he saw them from some distance. As
such, this fact further proves that both these
accused persons were duly associated in this
conspiracy .

1196. At the same time, it is already held

that the confession made by accused Balwant Singh
is voluntarily made and corroborated by the facts
and in the confession, he has admitted that the
room of accused Gurmeet Singh was used for
preparing the bomb and accused Lakhwinder Singh was
also associated in the conspiracy.

1197. Even accused Jagtar Singh Tara has

named accused Lakhwinder Singh as a conspirator in
the conspiracy and also confessed that the belt
bomb was prepared in the room of Gurmeet Singh and
the circuit of the bomb was connected by accused
Gurmeet Singh. The stand of both these accused
persons in their confessions clearly lend assurance
to the circumstance proved against Lakhwinder Singh
and Gurmeet Singh, under section 30 of the Evidence
Act .

1198. The stand of both these accused

persons is further corroborated by PW-102,
Constable Kuljeet Singh, another friend of accused
Balwant Singh, before whom also, he disclosed all

807

the details of the conspiracy as well as the role
of accused Lakhwinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh. This
witness has categorically deposed that as per
accused Balwant Singh, accused Gurmeet Singh has
helped them in manufacturing the bomb as he was an
old friend of accused Balwant Singh and deceased
Dilawar Singh and he also identified accused
Gurmeet Singh in the court. His testimony also
remained unchallenged despite incisive cross
examination by the counsel for the accused persons
and there is nothing to disbelieve him.

1199. All the above facts and circumstances
clearly show that both these accused persons have
intentionally and knowingly joined this conspiracy
and abetted and aided their co-conspirators in
different ways in order to achieve their planned
target i.e. the killing of S.Beant Singh.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 2

Re-painting of Car No. DBA-9598 by both
these accused persons along with accused
Balwant Singh and deceased Dilawar Singh
from PW-51, Surinder Sharma, Painter in
furtherance of their conspiracy.

1200. The most material circumstance
brought by the prosecution to link these two
accused persons with the conspiracy is that as per
their prior planning, accused Lakhwinder Singh, who

808

was known to PW-51, Surinder Sharma, a painter,
approached him along with the other accused
persons, named above, for the repainting of
Ambassador Car no.DBA-9598, Ex.P76 (hereinafter
referred as Ex.P76 for brevity) and asked him to
change the colour of the car from Steel grey to
off-white and thereafter from 26.8.1995 to
30.8.1995, all these four accused persons contacted
him in this connection either collectively or
individually or in group of two.

1201. Accordingly, let us scan the evidence
of PW-51 with reference to the objections raised by
learned defence counsel in this regard to assess
this aspect of the case.

1202. PW-51, Surinder Sharma, Proprietor of
Surinder Spray Paint, Sector 7 Chandigarh, when
appeared in the witness box, has deposed that he
was already knowing accused Lakhwinder Singh and
PW-114, Dalbir Singh @ Maul la, through PW-69,
Madanjit Singh @ Channa and accused Lakhwinder
Singh had visited his shop on two occasions for
denting and painting of a Gypsy and a Jonga. He
further deposed that accused Lakhwinder Singh is
also having a Scooter bearing registration no.PCP-
2085 and on one occasion, he had also done denting
and painting of his scooter.

1203. He has also deposed that accused

809

Lakhwinder Singh was clean shaven those days and
he, after identifying accused Lakhwinder Singh in
the court, further deposed that on 26.8.1995, this
accused along with three other persons came to his
shop in an Ambassador Car, Ex.P76, which was of
steel Grey Colour. One of the persons, who came
along with Lakhwinder Singh, was 24-25 years of age
having trimmed beard looking like a Hindu gentleman
and the second one was a Sikh Gentleman, having a
height of 5.6 feet and was wearing a patka and
spectacles, whereas the third one was Hindu
Gentleman of 30/32 years of age.

1204. PW-51 further deposed that accused
Lakhwinder Singh asked him that the car belongs to
his friends and it has to be re-painted in off-
white colour and reguired to be delivered back by
29th of August, 1995. However, when he asked that it
is a rainy season and it is not possible to get the
work done within the time limit, they insisted that
it should be done positively by 30.8.1995 and he
should paint the car only from outside. The bargain
was struck for a sum of Rs.3, 000/-, out of which
they paid an advance of Rs.1500/-. After that all
of them left his shop saying that they will leave
the car in the after noon. However, they returned
at about 5/5.30 p.m. and left the car.

1205. As per this witness, on the evening
of 26.8.1995, he handed over the car to Neeraj

810

Kumar, Denter and his shop was closed on 27.8.1995
it being a Sunday. On 28.8.1995, he brought the car
from the Denter and started preparing the surface
of the paint and during that time, accused
Lakhwinder Singh came to his shop at about 6.30
p.m., along with the person having trimmed beard on
scooter no.PCP-2085, Ex.P-80, owned by Lakhwinder
Singh, which this witness identified in the court,
to know the status of car.

1206. He further deposed that on 29.8.1995,
he painted the car and parked it inside the Garage
of Ranjit Motor Garrage as it was raining. On the
same day, the person with trimmed beard and the
Hindu Gentleman, who was clean shaven and who came
on the first day, came to his shop and inquired
about the car but he told them that the paint is
being drying and the delivery of the car will be
made only on 30.8.1995.

1207. He further deposed that on 30.8.1995,
both the same persons again came to his shop at
about 11.00 a.m. but the car was still not ready
for delivery as it was with Neeraj Kumar Denter for
fitting. He further deposed that he had not
repainted the car from inside. On seeing the car
both those persons asked him to repaint the number
plates also. On this, he removed the number plate
and sent the same to Tota Ram, who repainted the
number plates. During this both those persons

811

remained in his shop from 11.00 a.m to 4.00 p.m.
However, at about 3.30 p.m, one of these persons
with the trimmed beard had gone away on the
Scooter, Ex.P-80 and came back after sometime with
PW-114, Dalbir Singh @ Maul la. After that both
those persons took the delivery of the car after
paying the balance amount and left his shop,
whereas the scooter was taken by PW-114, Dalbir
Singh @ Maulla.

1207. Then comes the material facts
disclosed by this witness, which proves to be the
main link to unearth the entire conspiracy of this
case. As per this witness, after the assassination
of S.Beant Singh, when he saw the photograph of the
Car Ex.P-76, in the news paper on 2.9.1995, he came
to know that it is the same car, which he had
repainted and then he tried to contact SI Ram
Kumar, who was known to him but he was not
available on that day. Again on 3.9.1995, he
contacted Ram Kumar and met him and he told him
about the fact of painting of the car and then SI
Ram Kumar took him to the Police Station and
ultimately on 4.9.1995, he was interrogated by the
Police .

1208. No doubt, the above facts were not
mentioned by this witness in his statement made to
the Chandigarh Police on 4.9.1995 but he disclosed
these facts only in his cross examination, when the

812

learned defence counsel wanted to know, how the
police contacted him and as such, this fact shows
that the objection of learned defence counsel as to
this explanation is not tenable because it comes on
record during the cross examination of this witness
and that too, when he was asked to explain this
aspect .

1209. After explaining the above facts, PW-
51 deposed that on 4.9.1995, he made a statement to
the Chandigarh Police about repainting of the car,
Ex.P-76 on the request of Lakhwinder Singh and also
gave detailed descriptions of all other three
persons, who had accompanied Lakhwinder Singh and
who took the delivery of the car and he identified
the car Ex.P-76 in the Police Station.

1210. He further deposed that on 5.9.1995,
he along with Inspector Vijay Kumar had gone to
Village Kansal to locate Lakhwinder Singh but he
was not found in the Village but on the way back,
he (accused Lakwhinder Singh) was found coming on
the Kansal Road on his Scooter and on his
identification, he (accued Lakhwinder Singh) was
apprehended by the police and at that time
Balwinder Singh, who was working in his workshop
was also present and after his arrest, scooter
no.PCP-2085, Ex.P-80 was also taken into
possession. On the personal search of accused
Lakhwinder Singh, besides other papers, one chit,

813

Ex.P-51/3 was also recovered and the Scooter and

all the articles were taken into possession as per

recovery memos, Ex.P51/l and Ex.P51/2 which was
signed by him as well as Balwinder Singh.

1211. He further deposed that thereafter
the police party reached Sector 22, Chandigarh,
where the person, who accompanied Lakhwinder Singh
on 26.8.1995 was arrested and he identified him
accordingly and then he came to know that his name
is Gurmeet Singh. After this, this witness
identified accused Lakhwinder Singh as well as
Gurmeet Singh in the court. He further submitted
that the personal search of accused Gurmeet Singh
was also taken and the articles recovered were
taken into possession as per memo, Ex.PW51/4, which
includes a chit, Ex.PW51/5 having a writing and the
same was also signed by both of them.

1212. He further deposed that on 6.9.1995,
he was called by the CBI officials and he again
disclosed all the facts to the CBI and also
identified accused Lakhwinder Singh and Gurmeet
Singh, when shown to him by the CBI. After this,
the CBI showed him some photographs out of which he
separated four photographs of the persons, who came
to his shop on 26.8.1995 and thereafter he
identified accused Balwant Singh in the court as
the person, who had visited his shop on 29.8.1995
and 30.8.1995 and further deposed that he also came

814

to know that the fourth person, who was a clean
shaven Hindu gentleman, was Dilawar Singh, whose
photograph he identified as mark-YY/4 . He also
identified the photograph mark-SSS of Gurmeet Singh
and mark TTT a group photograph showing Dilawar
Singh and Gurmeet Singh, mark-UUU of accused
Balwant Singh and he signed all these photographs
in token of its identification.

1213. At the same time, the factum of

repainting of car is also corroborated from the
testimony of PW-48, Ranjit Singh, owner of the
Ran jit Workshop, Sector 7, Chandigarh, who when
stepped into the witness box deposed that in the
last week of August, 1995, PW-51 Surinder Sharma,
who is running a denting and painting shop on the
back side of his workshop and known to him,
approached him with a reguest to allow him to use
the backyard of his Service Station, which is a
covered shed for painting a car as it has to be
delivered on the following day and it was raining
on that day, he permitted PW-51 to use his shed
for the said purpose. He denied the suggestion that
his shed was never used by PW-51 for the painting
of car, Ex.P76. No doubt, this witness has neither
identified the car nor any of the accused persons
but certainly his testimony proves the factum of
painting of the car by PW-51 in his shed as stated
by PW-51.

815

1214. In addition to this, this fact is
also corroborated by PW-50, Tarlok Nath @ Tota,
who is a specialist painter of number plates and
the boards and having a shop in Sector 7 market. He
has also deposed that in the month of August, 1995,
on the reguest of PW-51, Surinder Sharma, he had
painted two number plates of an Ambassador Car with
the registration number DBA-9598. This witness has
also identified both the number plates, which he
had painted on the car Ex.P-76 and also identified
the photographs of the number plates mark-PPP and
mark-QQQ .

1215. The testimony of both the above
witnesses was recorded by the CBI in the month of
October, 1995 and it is alleged by the learned
defence counsel that PW-51 has nowhere deposed
before the Chandigarh Police that he had taken the
help of PW-48 and PW-50 for the painting of car and
its number plate. As such, both the witnesses have
been introduced by the CBI just to corroborate the
false stand of PW-51. However, when PW-51 was cross
examined on this aspect, he has deposed that he had
explained to the Chandigarh Police that he had
taken the help of PW-48 and PW-50 for painting of
car and number plate but he could not explain why
the said fact has not been recorded by the
Chandigarh Police in his statement, mark-VW/1.

1216. Similarly, some more omissions in the

816

statement of this witness, recorded by the
Chandigarh Police vis-a-vis made to the CBI and in
the court, were also put to him but he replied that
he had disclosed all those facts but why those were
omitted is not known to him. Thus, from the
testimony of this witness, there is nothing on the
file to say that PW-48 and PW-50 have been
introduced later on. On the contrary, their
testimony corroborates the stand of PW-51.

1217. One more plea of learned defence
counsel is that PW-51 has not disclosed the name
of Neeraj Kumar Fitter in his statement and his
name has also been introduced on the asking of CBI.
However, this plea is also baseless because Neeraj
Kumar is not a witness relied upon by prosecution
and his name was disclosed by PW-51 only when he
appeared in the witness box.

1218. Another contention of the learned
defence counsel is that the name of SI Ram Kumar of
Chandigarh Police along with DSP Abrol is also
based on after-thought just to link PW-51 with this
case as this aspect was also not disclosed by him
either before the Chandigarh Police or before the
CBI and has been introduced as an improvement.

1219. However again, this plea is also
having no affect on the testimony of PW-51 because
as stated earlier, he disclosed these facts only in

817

cross examination, when he was confronted as to how
he came in contact with the Police and as such it
can not be considered as an improvement in the
testimony of PW-51.

1220. This witness was cross examined by
the learned defence counsels for 13 days and there
are about 50 pages of his cross examination and all
this was done by learned defence counsels with a
plea that the entire stand of this witness is false
and concocted as none of the accused ever
approached him for repainting of the alleged car
nor he ever identified any of them.

1221. On the contrary, the photographs of
all the accused persons were shown to him and he
was also shown the accused persons on the first day
of his examination and then he identified them on
the second day of examination, alleging that
neither accused Laknwinder Singh nor accused
Gurmeet Singh were ever arrested in his presence
nor they were ever shown to him. As such, the
entire endeavour of learned defence counsel is that
the identification of the accused persons including
accused Laknwinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh by this
witness is manipulated and was only on the basis of
the photographs shown to him either during the
investigation or at the time of his evidence. As
such, let us take this objection at the outset
before considering the remaining stand of PW-51.

818

1222. As far as, the dispute of

identification is concerned, it is already held
that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
court, the identification of the accused person
for the first time in the court by some witnesses
is due identification if there are certain
exceptional circumstances which include the ability
of the witness to remember the vital statistics of
the accused, the period for which he interacted
with them and some special features making the
identification possible and lastly, where his stand
is otherwise probable and corroborated by the
circumstances .

1223. Accordingly, in the present case, the

evidence of PW-51 when scanned, it comes out that
there is nothing illegal in the identification of
all the four accused persons including deceased
Dilawar Singh by this witness during the trial.

1224. As far as, the identification of

accused Lakhwinder Singh is concerned, it is
categorically stated by this witness that he was
already knowing this accused and this stand of the
witness remained unrebutted, as during his cross
examination, when he was grilled on this aspect, he
has categorically with-stand the same and gave the
details how he knows accused Lakhwinder Singh.

819

1224. The stand of this witness is further
corroborated by PW-69, Madanjit Singh @ Channa and
this witness disclosed all the details as to how he
came to know Dalbir Singh @ Maulla and then how he
came to know Lakhwinder Singh and the stand of this
witness is that while working in the High Court, he
came in contact with Vijay Kumar, who was
manufacturing furniture specially Sofa Sets and PW-
114, Dalbir Singh @ Maulla was also working with
him and they were residing in Village Kansal .

1225. He further deposed that he was also
knowing PW-51, Surinder Sharma, a denter and
painter of Sector 7, Chandigarh for more than 20
years prior to this occurrence. He further deposed
that accused Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha was also
residing in Village Kansal and he was introduced to
Lakhwinder Singh by Dalbir Singh @ Maulla and then
he introduced Lakhwinder Singh to Surinder Sharma
and as such all of them knowing each other.

1226. Although, this witness has also
deposed about the act and conduct of accused
Lakhwinder Singh after the assassination of Beant
Singh but this aspect will be taken later on.

1227. In addition to this, PW-114, Dalbir
Singh @ Maulla, who is also an important witness,
has also corroborated this fact and deposed that
accused Lakhwinder Singh came in contact with

820

Surinder Sharma through him and PW-69. Even PW-114
deposed about the friendship of accused Lakhwinder
Singh with deceased Dilawar Singh and Balwant Singh
and also deposed that accused Lakhwinder Singh was
having a Scooter bearing registration no.PCP-2085,
Ex. P80 .

1228. He also deposed about the association
of all the accused persons with each other and
their confidence in each other. Lastly, he has also
deposed that on 30.8.1995 on the asking of
Lakhwinder Singh, he took accused Balwant Singh to
the shop of PW-51 and on reaching there, he found
that accused Dilawar Singh was already present
there along with the Car, Ex.P76 and when he was
confronted about the car, he disclosed that the car
belonged to his friend and they are going to attend
some wedding in the same and thereafter both of
them left the shop of PW-51.

1229. He also disclosed that after that, he
returned back with the scooter of Lakhwinder Singh
and handed over the same to him at his house and
also disclosed him that his friends Dilawar and
Balwant Singh had left the shop of PW-51 in the car
Ex.P76. Thus, from the stand of both these
witnesses, it is proved that accused Lakhwinder
Singh was already known to PW-51.

1230. As far as the plea of learned defence

821

counsel that PW-51 has not disclosed the name of
PW-69 and PW-114 in his statement before the
Chandigarh Police is concerned, again there is no
substance in this plea because PW-51 has explained
that he has disclosed to the Chandigarh Police that
he came in contact with accused Lakhwinder Singh
and PW-114 Dalbir Singh @ Maulla through PW-69
Madanjit Singh @ Channa, who was already known to
him for more than 15 years.

1231. He further stated that he has also
disclosed to the Chandigarh Police that accused
Lakhwinder Singh, who is also working as a driver
in Punjab Police, had also visited his shop 2-3
times for repair of police vehicle as well as his
own Scooter no.PCP-2085, Ex.P80 and he also stated
that he does not know why the Chandigarh Police had
not recorded these facts in his statement u/s 161
Cr.P.C. As such, this plea also proved in vain to
falsify either the stand of PW-51 or PW-69 and PW-
114.

1232. As far as the identification of
accused Gurmeet Singh by PW-51 is concerned, again
there is nothing on record to say that PW-51 was
having no occasion to identify this accused. It is
categorically stated by this witness that he met
accused Gurmeet Singh for the first time on
26.8.1995, when he came to his shop along with
accused Lakhwinder Singh and he categorically

822

disclosed the description physical statistics of
accused Gurmeet Singh by saying that he was a Sikh
youth, aged about 24/25 years, having a height of
5.5 inch with fair complexion and flowing beard and
a slim and active personality.

1233. At the same time, he has
categorically stated that after the arrest of
accused Lakhwinder Singh on 5.9.1995, when accused
Gurmeet Singh was also arrested as per the facts
disclosed by accused Lakhwinder Singh, he
identified him as the person who accompanied
Lakhwinder Singh on 26.8.1995 along with the other
two accused persons. At the same time, he was the
only Sikh Gentleman, who accompanied Lakhwinder
Singh to his shop and as such there was a special
aspect of his identity and at the same time, he has
identified Gurmeet Singh within a period of 10
days, which in the facts & circumstances of the
case can not be considered as a long period.

1234. At the same time, this witness has
categorically deposed that on 6.9.1995, when he was
interrogated by the CBI, some photographs were
shown to him out of which he separated the
photographs of all the four persons including
Lakhwinder Singh, who came to his shop on
26.8.1995, mark-UUU of accused Balwant Singh, being
a man with a trimmed beard and long height, mark-
SSS of accused Gurmeet Singh, who was the only Sikh

823

Gentleman with them and mark-TTT, which was a group
photograph having the photo of accused Dilawar
Singh and Gurmeet Singh, mark-YY/4 individual
photograph of deceased Dilawar Singh and in the
photographs, which are part of the record, we have
also the photograph of accused Lakhwinder Singh,
who was clean shaven at that time with the
signatures of PW-51. Lastly, PW-51 has also
identified accused Gurmeet Singh in the court
without showing him any photograph etc.

1235. One more controversy raised by
learned defence counsels as to the identity of both
these accused persons is that on 6.9.1995, when
both these accused persons were produced before
CJM, Chandigarh for their police remand, after
their arrest by the CBI, an application was filed
by the defence counsel for declining the police
remand and during the arguments of that
application, it was argued that they be remanded to
judicial custody as they wanted to get their
identification parade done.

1236. However, as is clear from the
proceedings, this plea was declined by the CJM with
the observations that at present the CBI has taken
a stand that they do not have any eye witness
before whom the TI parade could be done. However
neither there is written reply of the CBI in this
regard nor the statement of any responsible officer

824

was recorded by the learned C.J.M. before making
the above observations and perhaps it comes out
that since neither there was an application from
the accused persons for their test identification
nor there was any proper reply of the CBI was taken
by the learned CJM and as such the above
observations were made only on the basis of oral
assertions, whereas it is now argued by the CBI
that both these accused persons were already
arrested in the presence of PW-51 Surinder Sharma
and co-employee Balwinder Singh and they had
already identified them and apart from this, they
have no other eye witness from whom these accused
persons can be identified in any test
identification parade. However whatever may be the
facts and circumstances qua these proceedings, it
has no bearing on the factum of identification of
these accused persons in the court, which is
substantive evidence.

1237. As per learned defence counsel, this

approach of the Magistrate was totally unfair as
had the plea for Test identification parade would
have been allowed, the dispute of identity of both
these accused from PW-51, Surinder Sharma and
Balwinder Singh another worker of PW-51, should
have been settled once for all, as both these
witnesses, who have never seen these accused
persons or who never know them, could have not been
able to identify these accused.

825

1238. However, after considering this
contention along with the evidence and the facts
and circumstance of the case, it comes out that as
discussed earlier, it is settled by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Dana Yadav Vs. State of Bihar's case
(Supra) , that even when a prayer for test
identification on the behest of accused persons has
been declined and then those accused have been
identified in the court, no benefit of non-
conducting the TI Parade can be given to the
accused because the main thrust should be as to
whether evidence of a witness in court as to the
identity of an accused, is trustworthy or not and
if the answer is in affirmative, the fact the
prayer for holding test identification parade was
rejected or although granted, but no such parade
was held, would not in any manner affect the
evidence adduced in the court in relation to the
identity of the accused provided such an evidence
is free from doubt.

1239. In the above case, the authority Jadu
Nath Singh's case (Supra), relied upon by the
learned defence counsel is also considered, where
in also it was held that failure to hold test
identification parade of the accused is not fatal
in all cases. Similar proposition of law was
settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Malkhan Singh's
case (Supra) and Suresh Chander Bahri ' s case

826

(Supra) .

1240. At the same time, in Dana Yadav's

case (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court also held that
apart from the ordinary rule that identity of a
accused for the first time in the court, in a case
where the accused is not already known to the
witness or where he has not been seen by the
witness, without conducting test identification
parade, is not admissible in evidence, are subject
to certain exceptions. As per the Hon'ble Apex
Court, where the court is impressed by a particular
witness, whose testimony, it can safely rely
without such or other corroboration; that if a
witness had any particular reason to remember about
the identity of an accused; where a witness had a
chance to interact with accused for sometime and
had an opportunity to notice the distinctive
feature of the accused, which leads assurance to
his testimony in court, the evidence of such
identification in court for the first time by such
a witness can not be thrown away for want of test
identification parade. On the contrary, the accused
can be convicted only on the basis of such
identification, without the same being corroborated
either by previous identification or by any
evidence .

1242. Similarly in Umar Abdul Shakur ' s case

(Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court also settled that

827

there is no legal provision, which inhibits the
admissibility of evidence of identification by way
of photographs because such an identification will
become substantive evidence only when it is
confirmed by the witness in the court, where he has
to identify the accused.

1243. Even in D.Gopal Krishanan's case

(Supra) , an authority relied upon by learned
defence counsel, the above said proposition of law
was reiterated and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
there are no statutory guidelines in the matter of
showing photographs to the witnesses during the
stage of investigation. But nevertheless the police
is entitled to show the photographs to confirm
whether the investigation is going in the right
direction but this can be done only if the witness
had given the identifying features of the
assailant, which can be confirmed by showing the
photographs but not a single photograph of the
suspect. However, if the suspect is available for
identification or for video identification, the
photographs shall never be shown to the witness in
advance .

1244. Not even this, as submitted by
learned defence counsel even under the provisions
of Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1894, which is
prevalent in England, the photographs could be
shown to the witnesses only under certain specified

828

conditions and it can be put only when the
description of the suspect given by the witnesses,
has been recorded and the supervising officer is
unable to confirm the description and where the
suspect is known to the Police but not to the
witness, only identification parade should be
pressed into service. To the same effect is the
principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Laxmi Pat Choraria's case (Supra),

1245. As far as the right of the accused to
seek test identification parade is concerned, this
question was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Surinder Narian @ Muna Pandey Vs. State of U.P.,
AIR, 1998, Supreme Court, Page 192. In this case,
during the investigation, accused moved an
application before learned Magistrate claiming that
he is not known to the witness and the test
identification parade should be ordered.
However, this prayer of accused was declined and
during the course of trial, the accused was
identified by the witnesses and was convicted.

1246. When this fact was challenged before
the Apex Court, with a similar plea as is put
forward in this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that the identification parades are held not for
the purpose of giving defence advocates material to
work on, but in order to satisfy investigating
officer, the bonafide of prosecution witnesses and

829

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the failure to
hold test identification parade even after demand
by the accused is not always fatal and it is only
one of the relevant factors to be taken into
consideration along with the other evidence on
record. If the claim of ocular witnesses that they
knew the accused is found to be true the failure to
hold identification parade is inconsequential.
However, grant or refusal of such a prayer would
not necessarily ensure to the benefit of either
parties nor the same would be detrimental to their
interest .

1247. It was also held that needless to say
the statements made at identification parade are
not substantive evidence at the trial and as such
there is no requirement that the Magistrate making
an enquiry should listen to the statement made by
the witnesses at an identification parade, which
will not be an evidence at enquiry. Even the
prosecution is not bound to examine all the
witnesses sited by it including those, who are
related to identification specially when failure to
hold test identification parade of accused is not
fatal in all cases. This very principle was also
reiterated in Dana Yadav Vs. State of Bihar's case
(Supra) as well as in Jadu Nath Singh Vs. State of
U.P's case (Supra).

1248. Similarly in Tek Chand Vs. State, AIR

830

1965, Punjab, page, 146 the Hon'ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court held that the accused can not
compel the prosecution to hold their identification
parade during the investigations and there is no
law or procedure under which the Magistrate can
pass such order

1249. Applying the above proposition of law
to the facts in hand, it comes out that as
discussed earlier the accused Lakhwinder Singh was
already known to PW-51. Whereas, accused Gurmeet
Singh was firstly identified by the PW-51 through
his photograph mark-TTT and mark-SSS and then he
was identified by PW-51 on 5.9.1995, when he was
arrested by the Chandigarh Police and again on
6.9.1995, when he confirmed the identity of both
these accused persons before the CBI .

1250. Above all, while giving the details
of the persons, who came to him with Lakhwinder
Singh, this witness had given all the distinctive
features of all the those persons and he also
clarified that one of those person was a Sikh
gentleman with flowing beard having a particular
height, complexion, personality, etc. which clearly
matches with the features of accused Gurmeet Singh
and was thus rightly identified by him along with
the photographs of the other persons, accused
Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh, who both were
looking as Hindu Gentleman at that time being

831

without long hairs.

1251. Last but not the least, this witness
has also identified both these accused persons
along with accused Balwant Singh in the court even
before saying that he identified them through
photographs during the investigations. As such, the
plea of learned defence counsel that the testimony
of this witness is procured and manipulated and is
not tenable. As such, the authorities relied upon
by learned defence counsel, Joginder Singh @
Nagender Singh's case (Supra) and Gadam Vijay
Bhaskara Reddy's case (Supra), are of no help to
the defence to dispute the testimony of PW-51 or
the other witnesses of the prosecution in this
regard .

1252. As far as the other authorities
relied upon by learned defence counsel, as
mentioned in para no. 270 of this judgment, on this
aspect is concerned in Jai Mai's case (Supra), a

test identification parade was conducted but it was
found to be doubtful and on those facts, it was
held that simply because of the fact that the
witness has given the description of the assailant
is not sufficient to believe his identification in
the parade. However, in the present case as
discussed earlier, accused Gurmeet Singh, Balwant
Singh and deceased Dilawar Singh had been
identified by PW-51 on the basis of description

832

given by him before the police and because of the
fact that he had occasion to interact with them for
sufficient long time.

1253. Similarly in Rakesh Harilal Kahar's

case (Supra) , an test identification parade
conducted without asking the witness as to whether
he had opportunity to see the suspect or his
photograph prior to the parade, was found to be
doubtful but the facts of the present case are
clearly distinguishable.

1254. Similarly, in the case law Maan
Singh's case (Supra), in a case of assault by a
person, who was not known to the witness, his
identification before the court for the first time
was found to be doubtful for want of test
identification parade, specially when the witness
had no occasion either to see him or to interact
with him but again the facts of this case are
different from the authority relied upon.

1255. Similarly in Rama Nathan's case

(Supra), the hon'ble Apex Court while commenting
upon the importance of the identification parade
held that where in identification parade the
witness has identified the culprit, although, he
did not know him earlier, it is sufficient to link
him with the case even if it was not shown that the
accused were kept with muffled faces till

833

identification. However, in the present case, no
test identification parade was conducted but the
witness had identified the accused during
investigation as well as in the court.

1256. Similarly in Khan Singh @ Ujjagar
Khan's case (Supra), the Hon'ble Allahabad High
Court held that where no link evidence has been
adduced to show that the accused was not shown to
any witness during the time of his arrest till
lodging in jail, it is not proper to rely upon the
test identification parade but again the facts of
this case are clearly distinguishable. The same
proposition was settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in
State Vs. V.C.Shukla's case (Supra).

1257. However, in the present case as
discussed above, the question of identity of
accused persons is duly established from the
testimony of this witness coupled with the other
circumstantial evidence and as such all the
authorities are of no help to the defence.

1258. As discussed earlier, this witness
was cross examined by the learned defence counsels
for 13 days but despite his lengthy and incisive
cross examination, they could not bring out
anything from which it could be said that the
identity of these accused persons by him is not
admissible in evidence. No doubt, this witness

834

admitted that when he identified the photographs of
these accused persons before the CBI, he was not
knowing the name of any of these accused persons
except Lakhwinder Singh, it makes no difference
specially when he has stated that their names were
disclosed to him by the CBI then and there. At the
same time, he also denied the suggestion of learned
defence counsel that on the photograph the name of
accused persons were already written and it helped
him to identify them.

1259. As far as some of the contradiction
in the testimony of this witness vis a vis, his
statements recorded by the Chandigarh Police on
5.9.1995 and CBI on 6.9.1995, are concerned, these
are there but these are bound to occur because of
the lengthy and repeated cross examination of
learned defence counsels for 13 days during the
period of five months from 25.2.1997 when his
examination-in-chief was recorded partly for the
first day till 19.7.1997 when his cross examination
was completed.

1260. At the same time, as per the
proposition of law mentioned above, these
discrepancies are not material, as these were
pointed out to dispute the question of identity,
which is otherwise held to be duly proved in favour
of the prosecution. Not even this, when this
witness was cross examined as to these

835

contradictions on 26.5.1997, 27.5.1997, 28.5.1997
continuously, in answer to those facts, he has
explained that whatever was asked from him by the
Chandigarh Police, he answered accordingly and
whatever was asked by CBI, he answered accordingly.

1261. Even when some of the facts disclosed
by him before the CBI were put to him saying that
why he had not disclosed those before the
Chandigarh Police, he alleged that those facts were
not asked by the Chandigarh Police. At the same
time, as settled in Mata Din's case (Supra), the
statements given by the witnesses before the police
are meant to be brief statements and could not take
the place of evidence in the court. As such, if
there are minor omissions, the same will not
justify a finding by the court that the witness
concerned is a self contained lier.

1262. Last but not the least, even where
some facts has not been enquired by the Police
during the investigations but disclosed by the
witness in the court, it can not be said that the
proof of such facts before the court makes the
testimony of the witness doubtful, as no benefit of
the faulty and defective investigations can be
given to the accused unless it has for reaching
affect on the case of the prosecution.

1263. Now let us consider the other grounds

836

raised by learned defence counsel to challenge the
stand of PW-51. As per the learned defence counsel,
the stand of PW-51 that on 26.8.1995, accused
Balwant Singh was also one of the members of the
group, which came to him for the repaint of the
car, is belied by the stand of accused Balwant
Singh in his confession, wherein he alleged that on
26.8.1995, he was at Patiala till evening.

1264. However, after going through the
confession of accused Balwant Singh, it comes out
that he has nowhere stated that on 26.8.1995, he
remained at Patiala from morning to evening. On the
contrary, he alleged that they had fixed a time for
meeting in the morning of 26.8.1995 with Paramjit
Singh @ Kala for getting the colour of the car
changed into ^off-white' colour. He further
disclosed that on 27.8.1995, Dilawar Singh came to
him and disclosed that because of the rainy season,
it will take some time to change the colour of the
car. He has also stated that on 30.8.1995 he and
Dilawar Singh went to the shop of Painter for
taking the delivery of the car but it was not ready
and they could get the delivery of the car only in
the evening.

1265. He also stated that at that time,
they were having the scooter of Lakhwinder Singh
and Lakhwinder Singh sent his friend to bring back
the scooter from the shop of the painter. This is

837

what has been stated by PW-51. No doubt, accused
Balwant Singh has tried to twist some facts by not
naming the particular accused as to his role on a
particular day with obvious purpose to save his
friends but the over all stand of his confession
on the fact in dispute clearly fits in with the
stand of PW-51 and thus corroborates his testimony
and also supplement the confession of Balwant Singh
and if it is so, no benefit of this plea can be
given to the accused.

1266. No doubt, as submitted by learned
defence counsel, accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar
Singh Tara in their confession alleged that accused
Paramjit Singh, facing trial separately, was
deputed to get the car re-painted but it was
nowhere stated that it was only his duty to do so.
At the same time, it is also admitted by both these
accused that accused Paramjit Singh was residing at
Delhi those days and as such there was no guestion
of saying that he could get this work done alone.

1267. On the contrary, accused Lakhwinder
Singh, who was knowing PW-51, Surinder Sharma, was
also deputed to do so and he himself took the
remaining accused persons with him to justify the
changed colour of car and to show that the car
belongs to them and they reguire the repainting as
early as possible as they want to use the car for a
marriage, and PW-51 has also supported this fact.

838

Thus, this plea also proved in vain to derive any
benefit for the accused.

1268. In view of the above discussed legal
and factual position, it is held that the
prosecution has successfully proved that acused
Gurmit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh along with their
co-accused Balwant Singh and deceased Dilawar
Singh, got the car, Ex.P-76 repainted from PW-51,
as per their plan to show it as an official vehicle
to seek entry in the Secretariat, to hit their
target as per the plan, mastermind and coordinated
by accused Jagtar Singh Hawara.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO 3

Preparation of belt bomb in the house
of accused Gurmeet Singh by all the
main accused persons namely Jagtar
Singh Hawara, Balwant Singh, deceased
Dilawar Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and
Gurmeet Singh on the intervening
night of 28th/29th August, 1995.

1269. As disclosed above, accused Jagtar
Singh Tara and Balwant Singh in their respective
confessions confessed that after reaching Mohali,
along with all the inputs of the belt bomb
including RDX etc. all of them assembled in the
room of accused Gurmeet Singh, which was on the
first floor of house no. 981, Phase-IV Mohali and on
the night of 28.8.1995, they re-made the bomb by

839

adding some more splinters etc in the RDX. Thus let
us consider the evidence of prosecution to
adjudicate this controversy, which goes to the root
of the case, as far as factum of conspiracy, is
concerned .

1270. The most material witness of the
prosecution to prove this aspect is PW-101,
Satwinder Singh @ Simpy, who was sharing the room
with accused Gurmeet Singh, in which the bomb was
prepared .

1271. Accordingly, when he stepped into the
witness box, he deposed that he knows accused
Gurmeet Singh, who was his class-fellow in Thaper
Polytechnic Institute, Patiala and after completing
their diploma, both of them took employment at
Chandigarh and both of them were searching a house
to live. Ultimately, both of them took a room on
rent on the first floor in house no. 981 Phase-IV
Mohali, owned by PW-63, Avtar Singh, and on the
ground floor, there was a STD booth of Avtar Singh
and one Puran Chand was the tenant on the other
portion .

1272. He further deposed that in the year
1994 in the marriage of sister of Gurmeet Singh, he
introduced him with Dilawar Singh and thus he knows
Dilawar Singh. With this back-ground, he deposed
that on 28.8.1995, some friends of Gurmeet Singh,

840

had visited him in the said room and they reached
at about 7.00 p.m. He was knowing one of them
previously, who was Dilawar Singh and the remaining
were introduced to him by Gurmeet Singh as
Lakhwinder Singh, Balwant Singh and Bhai Ji, who
was later on identified as Jagtar Singh Hawara.

1273. He further deposed that since there
was shortage of space, Gurmeet Singh asked him to
sleep in the STD booth of Avtar Singh and he
agreed. Accordingly, he went to sleep in the STD
booth. However, when he returned back to his room
to take a bed sheet, he found that accused Gurmeet
Singh and his friends were sitting on the floor and
they had spread a news paper and were doing
something and after taking the bed sheet, he came
down and slept in the STD booth for that night. On
the next morning, when he went to his room, Gurmeet
Singh and all his four friends were there and after
getting ready, he left for his job.

1274. He further deposed that in the
evening at about 7/7.30 p.m., when he returned
back, he found that only Balwant Singh and Bhai Ji
were present in the room and they gave him a
message that his friend Raman had visited him. As
per this witness, after that he went to the house
of his aunt and remained there for the night of
29.8.1995. He also deposed that while leaving the
room, he found that some police uniforms are

841

hanging on the peg of their room, which were
neither of him nor of Gurmeet Singh.

1275. He further deposed that on 10.9.1995,
he was called by the CBI and when he reached there,
he found that accused Gurmeet Singh and Lakhwinder
Singh were already present there and he identified
them and also identified the photographs of the
other friends of Gurmeet Singh, who visited him in
their room. After that he identified those
photographs as mark-00000 of accused Lakhwinder
Singh, mark-PPPPP of Dilawar Singh and Gurmeet
Singh, Ex. DC/2 of Bhai Ji @ Jagtar Singh Hawara and
mark-QQQQQ of Balwant Singh and deposed that he had
signed all those photographs in the token of its
identification .

1276. He further deposed that in the month
of January, 1996, he identified accused Balwant
Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara, in the custody of
the CBI. Lastly, he identified all the four accused
persons, Balwant Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Gurmeet
Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara in the court.

1277. This witness was cross examined by
learned defence counsels with a defence that
neither he was present in his room on 28th and 29th
of August nor any of the accused persons ever
visited Gurmeet Singh nor they were seen by this
witness. On the contrary, this witness was

842

pressurised to make this statement as he was also
arrested because he absconded from his room on
1.9.1995 and he agreed to depose against the
accused persons, when he was tortured by the CBI .
However, this endeavour of learned defence counsel
proved in vain.

1278. Simply because of the fact that this

witness was not available in the room after
31.8.1995 till 10.9.1995, it can not be said that
he was a suspected person, having some concern with
this crime. On the contrary, he has denied the
suggestion of learned defence counsel that he was
in the illegal custody of CBI from 5.9.1995 to
10.9.1995 and was tortured and pressurise to become
a witness.

1279. No doubt, during the cross

examination, when he was called again to identify
all the four accused persons, who had already been
identified by him during his examination-in-chief
on 7.12.1999 and he could identify only accused
Gurmeet Singh and Balwant Singh but it is already
stated by him, he was already knowing the deceased
Dilawar Singh. But he has also reiterated that he
identified all those persons during investigations
through their photographs and he denied the
suggestion that he identified those persons in the
court during his examination-in-chief only after
seeing the photographs .

843

1280. Above all, the stand of PW-101 is
further corroborated by PW-104, Raman Kumar, who is
friend of PW-101 and he accordingly deposed that he
is working in the same office with PW-101 Satwinder
Singh @ Simpi, who had been residing in house
no. 981, Phase-IV Mohali, along with accused Gurmeet
Singh and he had been visiting them and thus
knowing Gurmet Singh.

1281. He further deposed that in the last
week of August, 1995, he went to the house of PW-
101, Satwinder Singh and when reached there, he
found that four persons were sitting in the room,
one of whom was a kesh dhari Sikh Gentleman and
three were clean shaven but PW-101, S.P.Singh, was
not there and on his enguiry, those four persons
stated that SP. Singh has not yet reached and he
then requested them to pass on a message to
S.P.Singh about his visit and on the next date, PW-
101 called back to him as per the message given by
him and on his asking PW-101 disclosed that all
those four persons were from Patiala.

1282. He further deposed that during
investigations, the CBI had shown him some
photographs but he could not identify those four
persons, although, he identified accused Gurmeet
Singh in the court being already known to him. He
had denied the suggestion that he never visited

844

that room nor he found any four persons sitting
there. No doubt, this witness has not identified
any of the accused persons but his testimony
certainly proves that apart from Gurmeet Singh,
four persons were present in the room as stated by
PW-101, who is room partner of accused Gurmeet
Singh and thus his stand in the court in this
regard is true.

1283. As mentioned earlier, it is alleged

by the learned defence counsels that this witness
has taken a false stand of taking a room jointly
with Gurmeet Singh, as PW-63 has categorically
deposed that this house was initially taken on rent
by this witness and later on, he brought Gurmeet
Singh, as co-tenant. No doubt, PW-63 Avtar Singh
has stated so but it makes no difference because
the testimony of this witness is relevant only as
to the presence of all the above accused persons on
28.8.1995 and 29.8.1995 in that house and as to how
Gurmeet Singh had taken this house on rent is
immaterial particularly when it is admitted case of
accused Gurmeet Singh that he was residing as a
tenant in a room in house no. 981, Phase IV, Mohali.
In view of this, the objection raised by the
learned defence counsel proved in vain.

1284. On the contrary, PW-63 Avtar Singh

had deposed that in the month of August, 1995,
accused Gurmeet Singh and PW-101 were his tenants

845

and on one day, PW-101 requested him to allow him
to sleep in the STD booth during the night as some
relatives will stay in the room resulting into
shortage of space and he also deposed that it was
either 28.8.1995 or 29.8.1995. He has also
identified accused Gurmeet Singh in the court, as
his tenant.

1285. Not even this, PW-68, Puran Chand who
was another tenant of PW-63 in the ground floor,
also corroborated the stand of PW-101 and PW-63, as
he deposed that accused Gurmeet Singh, present in
the court, along with PW-101, was occupying the
first floor of H. No. 981 Phase-IV Mohali, owned by
PW-63, Avtar Singh and he was a tenant in the
ground floor in a tin shed.

1286. He further deposed that on 28.8.1995,
some persons were in the room of Gurmeet Singh and
at about 11.30 p.m., in the midnight because of
terrible tooth ache, he went to the room of Gurmeet
Singh to have some medicines and found that five
persons were sitting in the room including Gurmeet
Singh and out of the remaining four persons, three
were clean shaven and one was Sikh Gentleman.
However, when he asked for the medicine, Gurmeet
Singh told he has no medicine with him and as such
he returned back to his tin shed.

1287. He further deposed that he has seen

846

all those five persons on 26/27/28.8.1995 and he
had also saw one of them on 29.8.1995 and 31.8.1995
in the room of Gurmeet Singh. He had also deposed
that two of the boys had come in a car and one on a
Scooter and one of them was wearing a uniform.

1288. He further deposed that on 6.9.1995,
he was called by the CBI, where some photographs
were shown to him out of which, he picked up
photographs mark-FFFF, who was also identified by
him in the custody of CBI and who was Jagtar Singh
Hawara. He also identified the photograph mark-
YY/3, mark-GGGG and mark-HHHH and stated that these
were of those other three persons, who visited the
room of Gurmeet Singh, from 27.8.1995 to 31.8.1995
along with Jagtar Singh Hawara.

1289. He further deposed that on 8.9.1995,
he identified accused Gurmeet Singh in the CBI
custody, where on interrogation, accused Gurmeet
Singh also suffered disclosure statement, Ex.PW68/A
and one Parnab Sain was also present, at that time
and in that statement accused Gurmeet Singh
disclosed all the facts as mentioned there in and
thereafter, accused Gurmeet Singh led the police
party to his room and one Doctor was also
accompanied the CBI party and on reaching the
house, Gurmeet Singh opened the same and then the
room was searched by the CBI and some recoveries
were made including pieces of news paper, card

847

boards and on those articles there were some black
colour substance and after converting the same into
sealed parcels, the same was taken into possession
as per the recovery memo, Ex.PW68/B.

1290. He also identified the envelope when

shown to him as article Ex.P82 along with the seals
of the CBI, Ex.P83 along with his signatures and
identified that it is the same envelope in which
the polythene bag containing news papers etc. was
sealed. He also identified that polythene bag,
Ex.P84, the card board box Ex.P85 and another card
boards case, Ex.P86, three pieces of card board
recovered from the room of Gurmeet Singh
collectively marked as Ex.P87 and three pieces of
news paper collectively marked as Ex.P88.

1291. He further deposed that apart from

this, all other articles found in the room of
accused Gurmeet Singh, were also taken into
possession as per memo, Ex.PW68/C. Not even this,
he has also identified the accused Gurmeet Singh,
Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara in the court
by touching them as the persons, who were seen by
him visiting the room of accused Gurmeet Singh
between 26.8.1995 to 30.8.1995.

1292. During his

witness again reiterated
photographs of these accu

cross examination this
that he identified the
sed persons in the month

848

of September, 1995 and thereafter he identified
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant Singh in
the CBI Office in January, 1996. He further alleged
that he had shown about 9-10 photographs, out of
which he picked up the photographs of those four
persons .

1293. As far as the testimony of this
witness relating to search and seizure proceedings
in the room of accused Gurmeet Singh is concerned,
it will be taken up later on but on the aspect of
visit of the accused persons in the room of Gurmeet
Singh, this stand remain unrebutted. No doubt,
there are some contradiction in the testimony
before this court, vis a vis statement made before
the CBI but these are bound to occur as this
witness was cross examined for 5-6 days repeatedly.

1294. One more witness, who deposed about
the visit of some persons in the house of accused
Gurmeet Singh, is PW-55, Reema Kahlon who was
working as STD Operator in the booth of PW-63,
Avtar Singh and she accordingly deposed that she
had seen some boys visiting the house of accused
Gurmeet Singh, who was residing in the first floor
of that building and during investigations, she had
identified the photographs of some of those
persons, including mark YY/2 of deceased Dilawar
Singh and the same was also signed by her on its
reverse side.

849

1295. No doubt, she has not identified any
other accused either during the investigations nor
during her testimony in the court. However, during
her cross examination, she deposed that about 7-8
photographs were shown to her, which were of 2-3
different persons and she denied the suggestion
that no photograph was shown to her.

1296. It is already held that
identification of the suspects on the basis of
photograph during the investigations is permissible
and PW-101 Satwinder Singh @ Simpy, had
categorically identified all the four accused
persons, who were present in the room of accused
Gurmeet Singh, with him during the period 26th
August to 31st August, 1995 and there is nothing on
the file to disbelieve the stand of this witness in
this regard.

1297. As far as the plea of learned defence
counsel that the story of prosecution regarding
preparation of bomb in the house of Gurmeet Singh
stands falsified from the confession of Balwant
Singh, wherein he has confessed that the belt bomb
was prepared by him and Jagtar Singh Hawara on
26.8.1995 and 27.8.1995 itself and that too, at
Patiala, is concerned, there is no force in this
plea because as stated earlier accused Balwant
Singh, had made the confession on 23.1.1996, when

850

all his co-accused persons were already arrested
and the evidence was collected against them and
fully knowing this fact, he tried to twist some
facts while making his confession in order to save
his comrades and specially Gurmeet Singh.

1298. This fact is further proved from the
fact that when accused Balwant Singh cross examined
PW-95, Tejinder Pal Singh, before whom he suffered
extra judicial confession, which is already held to
be admissible in evidence, he alleged that the
facts disclosed by PW-95 are correct except accused
Gurmeet Singh. Thus, accused Balwant Singh
intentionally tried to exclude the role of accused
Gurmeet Singh in this conspiracy.

1299. However, at the same time, he has
admitted that after coming from Patiala, all of
them assembled in the room of Gurmeet Singh and
stayed there for the night of 28.8.1995 and even on
the morning of 29.8.1995, accused Lakhwinder Singh,
Dilawar, Jagtar Singh Hawara, Gurmeet and he
himself were present and even in the evening
Lakhwinder again came to that room with Dilawar
Singh. If it is so, this aspect further shows that
whatever has been stated by PW-101 and PW-68, is
correct and duly corroborated from the other
material facts and it also supplement the
confessions of accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar
Singh Tara. Thus, this plea proved in vain to

851

falsify the stand of prosecution as far as the act
& conduct of accused Gurmeet Singh and his role in
this conspiracy is concerned.

1300. However, whatever may be the facts
and circumstances, the testimony of all the above
discussed witnesses is sufficient to say that as
disclosed by accused Balwant Singh in his
confession, accused Gurmeet Singh was also
associated in this conspiracy, being a friend of
Dilawar Singh and all of them remained in the house
of accused Gurmeet Singh and Balwant Singh had even
stated that they have also discussed the final plan
to hit the target in the house of Gurmeet Singh and
stayed there for a night along with Dilawar Singh.

1301. He also confessed that during their
stay in the house of Gurmeet Singh, Jagtar Singh
Hawara was also there but he left the room and even
he and Dilawar Singh went to Kansal Village to see
Lakhwinder Singh. No doubt, as stated earlier,
accused Balwant Singh tried to twist some facts
regarding this aspect but he could not do so
because the over all conclusion from the evidence
led by the prosecution and the facts disclosed in
the confession of Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh
Tara clearly link accused Gurmeet Singh and
Lakhwinder Singh with this conspiracy.

1302. Now let us take some individual

852

circumstances brought on the file against both
these accused persons which further link them with
this conspiracy and fortify the case of the
prosecution .

The individual role of accused Gurmit
Singh .

1303. First of all, let us take the

evidence of the prosecution in this regard showing
the individual role and circumstances against
accused Gurmeet Singh.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 1

Arrest of the accused Gurmeet Singh in
this case coupled with the conspiracy
raised by the defence in this regard.

1304. As per the prosecution on 5.9.1995,

as per the facts disclosed by PW-51 that accused
Lakhwinder Singh and others, were responsible for
the paint of the crime car, Ex.P76; accused
Lakhwinder Singh was arrested by PW-238 in the
presence of PW-51 and after that on interrogation,
he disclosed the name of accused Gurmeet Singh and
took the police party to Sector 22 in SCO no. 2463--
64, where accused Gurmeet Singh was found standing
in a verandah and he was accordingly arrested and
after his search, he was interrogated in the
presence of PW-51, Surinder Sharma, who also

853

identified him and then both of them were handed
over to the CBI.

1305. Much has been argued by learned
defence counsel about the arrest of accused Gurmeet
Singh and recovery of the service record from PW-
67, T.P.Yadav. As per learned defence counsel, it
is alleged by the prosecution that accused Gurmeet
Singh participated in the conspiracy between
25.8.1995 to 31.8.1995, which means during these
days, he would have been absent from his duties and
the prosecution was obliged to collect this record
and it was accordingly collected but the same has
been suppressed.

1306. To substantiate this plea, he
submitted that as per PW-241, on 9.9.1995 he took
into possession the attendance and leave record of
Gurmeet Singh from PW-67, as per memo of recovery,
Ex.P67/A, vide which the attendance register of the
staff of BPL Engineering from January to
September, 1995 along with certain letters and the
Engineers' Daily Report of accused Gurmeet Singh,
for the relevant time was taken into possession.

1307. However, during the trial the
prosecution has placed on the record only the leave
card of accused Gurmeet Singh and the Engineers'
Daily Reports have not been made part of record
with a mala fide intention as it would have shown

854

that accused Gurmeet Singh was very much present
on his job during the alleged period from 25.8.1995
to 31.8.1995 and even in the leave card, this fact
is clear as the accused Gurmeet Singh has been
shown on leave only on 31.8.1995 and 4.9.1995 and
that too, is doubtful as there is a cutting in the
digit '3' of 31.8.1995.

1308. As per learned defence counsels, all

these facts and circumstances show that accused
Gurmeet Singh was never arrested on 5.9.1995 as
alleged nor he was having any concern with this
case as he was on duty during this alleged period
of conspiracy and a false story has been cooked-up
to implicate him only because of the fact that he
was friend of deceased Dilawar Singh, without there
being any link and role of this accused.

1309. However, after considering this

aspect, it comes out that this dispute is
unnecessarily raised because whether this accused
attended his duties during the period of conspiracy
or not is not a ground to link him with the
conspiracy but the moot question is whether he was
sharing the conspiracy with his co-conspirators
even if he was not playing any direct role in its
preparations. At the same time, as per the
prosecution, the main role of this accused is to
help the co-accused in preparation of bomb in his
room, being an Electrical Engineer to complete the

855

circuit and fuse of the bomb and how to detonate it
and to give them shelter. This aspect is duly
proved on the file as per the detailed discussion
made above .

1310. Similarly, whether the accused was

arrested from the market of Sector 22 or from his
office on 5.9.1995 as indirectly admitted by PW64
and PW-67, his co-employees is also not a relevant
point to doubt the arrest of this accused.
Similarly, the dispute of leave card and attendance
register is also of little importance qua his
connection with this conspiracy. Even, a perusal of
leave card, Ex.PW64/D coupled with attendance
register, Ex.PW64/A along with relevant entries,
Ex.PW64/B and Ex.PW64/C, it comes out that in the
month of August, 1995, this accused was present on
his duties on 21.8.1995 onwards till 31.8.1995 and
he has been shown on causal leave on 31.8.1995, as
stated by PW-64 and PW-67. If it is so, the plea of
learned defence counsel that there is a cutting in
the leave card at point-B showing change of digit
'2' into '3' is without any basis because as stated
earlier on 21.8.1995, this accused was on his
duties .

1311. Similarly, whether the accused was on

leave or not after this blast, is also not a
relevant thing, specially when even PW-64 and PW-
67, who have proved the above records, admitted

856

that accused Gurmeet Singh attended his duties on
5.9.1995 after being on leave on 4.9.1995 and he
was also arrested on 5.9.1995. Even if it is
admitted that he was arrested from his office, it
makes no difference rather it shows that he was
actually arrested on 5.9.1995.

1312. Similarly, the non-production of the
Engineer Daily Reports has also no affect on this
aspect as even if it is presumed that he was on his
duties during the period of conspiracy, it makes no
difference. At the same time, even Balwant Singh in
his confession alleged that on 29 & 30.8.1995,
Gurmeet Singh attended his duties and the actual
stay of these accused with him is only on the night
of 28.8.1995 till 31.8.1995, which is duly
established on the record.

C I RCMS T ANCE NO 2

Search of room of Gurmeet Singh and
recovery of incriminating articles Ex.P87
and Ex.P88 i.e the pieces of card board
and news papers having the traces of RDX,
in consequences of disclosure statement of
accused Gurmeet Singh.

1313. As discussed earlier, PW-68 Puran
Chand has categorically deposed that during the
investigations on 8.9.1995 accused Gurmeet Singh
suffered a disclosure statement, Ex.PW68/A in his

857

presence and in the presence of PW-70, Parnab Sain
in which he disclosed his role in this conspiracy
along with other facts saying that he was part and
parcel of this conspiracy and the belt bomb used by
deceased Dilawar Singh was prepared in his room in
H. No. 981 Phase-IV Mohali and he has checked the
circuit of the bomb and fuse and his friends
Dilawar Singh, Balwant Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and
Jagtar Singh @ Hawara used to assemble in his room
in this regard for planning etc.

1314. He also disclosed that accused
Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh Hawara brought RDX
and other articles to prepare the bomb on a card
board kept in a black bag and they have prepared
the bomb after mixing the RDX with other articles
on a news paper and put it in the belt bomb and all
those articles are concealed by him in his room and
he could get the same recovered.

1315. PW-70, Parnab Sain has corroborated
the stand of PW-68 in this regard by reiterating
the facts as stated by PW-68 Puran Chand. Both
these witnesses further deposed that after making
disclosure statement by accused Gurmeet Singh, the
CBI officials joined one Mr.Verma from Forensic
Laboratory and then accused Gurmeet Singh took them
to his house and after opening the door, he himself
brought out a pink coloured bag from the perchatti
(etic) and on search of the same, some pieces of

858

card board and news paper and another envelope were
recovered, which are already marked as P-84 to P-87

1316. They further deposed that Dr.Verma
also collected some particles from the floor of the
room into a phial, Ex.P91 and then all the articles
were sealed in a parcel and were taken into
possession as per the memo of recovery, Ex.PW68/B,
which is signed by both of them as well as by the
accused. When PW-70 was cross examined by learned
defence counsels to challenge him by saying that he
never visited the room of Gurmeet Singh nor any
recovery proceedings were made, he denied the
suggestions of defence counsel in this regard. On
the contrary, he disclosed all the relevant facts,
which shows that he was very much present during
the search and seizure proceedings and there is
nothing on the file to doubt his testimony as no
motive or enmity has been attributed gua him to
depose falsely against the accused.

1317. He has categorically stated that
there was STD booth in the ground floor, which was
lying closed at that time and a poster bearing the
writing "bachelors den" was pasted out side the
door of the room. He even disclosed that PW-68
stated that he is residing on the ground floor. He
has denied the suggestion that before their
reaching there, the Chandigarh Police and the
Punjab Police had already conducted the search.

859

1318. Similarly, a suggestion was put to
PW-68 that the lock of the room was broken by him
and it was not opened by accused Gurmeet Singh and
then the search was conducted was denied by him. At
the same time, this plea is self -contradictory as
on one hand, the defence alleged that this witness
was not present during the search proceedings and
on the other hand, it was suggested to him that it
was he, who broke opened the door and the search
was made.

1319. No doubt, because of the lengthy cross
examination, there were some contradictions and
omissions here and there but those are immaterial
and bound to occur and can not be made basis to
discard the testimony of this witness.

1320. As far as the plea of learned defence
counsel that no site plan of search and seizure
proceedings have been prepared by the Investigating
Officer, which further makes the search doubtful is
concerned, it is also without any basis because as
stated earlier non-preparation of the site plan is
itself not sufficient to say that no search was
conducted .

1321. Similarly, the plea of learned
defence counsel that no personal belongings of
accused Gurmeet Singh were recovered from the said

860

house has any bearing on the case of prosecution,
rather it shows that the accused Gurmeet Singh had
vacated the room after this operation, without
surrendering its actual possession to the landlord.
Perhaps while doing so, the accused could not clean
the entire room and left some traces of RDX in the
room, which were recovered by PW-160, R.S.Verma, a
Ballistics Expert and the incriminating articles
concealed by him were also recovered in conseguence
of his disclosure statement, which distinctively
relate to the discovery of material facts in hand
and thus admissible in evidence, as per the
provisions of Section 27 as well as Section 8 of
the Evidence Act, as per the proposition of law
discussed above in this regard.

1322. At the same time, the testimony of
both these witnesses is further corroborated by PW-
160 R.S.Verma, an expert of the Forensic
Laboratory, who when appeared in the witness box
has also deposed about the search and seizure
proceedings carried out in the house of accused
Gurmeet Singh and he also deposed that during the
search, he recovered small particles from the room
and after examining the same then and there, he
found the traces of RDX.

1323. Not even this, he also lifted the
particles into a small phial, Ex.P91 for test in
the laboratory and then deposed that after

861

examining the same in the laboratory as per his
report, Ex.PW160/l again found the traces of the
RDX on all those articles collectively marked as
article P-87 and P-88 consisting of pieces of card
board and news papers.

1324. This witness has categorically
deposed that he took both the samples of the
incriminating articles recovered from the house of
accused Gurmit Singh along with the some sample of
blackish material stated to be explosive recovered
from the house of Gurmit Singh and after extracting
and scraping the blackish material from the news
papers, card board pieces, polythene carry bag
etc., he conducted the various laboratory tests and
found traces of RDX explosive in those articles
having percentage of more than 81%.

1325. The testimony of this witness has
been challenged by learned defence counsels on the
plea that had this witness been present during the
search proceedings, he would have signed the
recovery memo, Ex.PW68/B but the same has no
signatures of this witness, which itself shows that
he was not at all present during the alleged
search. At the same time, he alleged that he has
tested the material at the spot but he has not
prepared any report in this regard on the spot,
which further shows that he was not present during
these proceedings.

862

1326. However, after going through the
testimony of this witness and surrounding facts and
circumstances, it comes out that he accompanied the
CBI party not as a witness of search and seizure
but in the capacity of expert of explosives and at
the same time he conducted the test at the spot
only to prima-facie satisfied himself about the
samples for the purpose to examining the same in
the laboratory and if it is so, this testimony can
not be discarded on the alleged plea specially when
he is a expert witness, who has no animosity for
deposing falsely and giving a false report.

1327. At the same time, the pieces of news
papers were again examined by PW-165, Roop Singh,
who after examining the news paper chemically and
instrumentally, again confirms the presence of RDX
based high explosives in the stains available on
the newspaper pieces, Ex.P88, vide his report
Ex. PW165/5 .

1328. The report of this witness has been
challenged by learned defence counsel alleging that
as per PW-165, he received newspaper pieces Ex.P88,
in his division on 8.11.1995, whereas it was
allegedly recovered on 8.9.1995 and there is no
evidence on the file where it remains for these two
months. However, after considering the evidence, it
comes out that this plea is also without any basis

863

because as stated earlier, PW-160, R.S.Verma after
the recovery proceedings from the house of accused
Gurmit Singh sealed all the articles along with the
sample of blackish matter and took the same to
Laboratory on 8.9.1995 itself and examined those
articles in his Laboratory and prepared his report,
Ex.PW160/l dated 27.9.1995, which was forwarded to
the CBI on 12.10.1995 and he has further explained
that the testing process continues from 8.9.1995 to
21.9.1995, which means these parcels remained with
PW-160 upto 12.10.1995, when he forwarded the
report and thereafter those were sent to document
division and then those were sent to PW-165. Thus,
from this it is proved that these articles reached
the CFSL on the date of recovery itself and as such
there is nothing on the file to doubt its
intactness during the time it remained in the
Laboratory. As such, this plea is also lacks any
advantage for the defence.

1329. In view of the above discussed legal

and factual position, it is proved beyond doubt
that after arranging all the inputs and making
preparations at Patiala, all the accused persons
namely Jagtar Singh Hawara, Balwant Singh, deceased
Dilawar Singh and Jagtar Singh Tara reached Mohali
and settled themselves in the house of accused
Gurmeet Singh, who being an old friend of deceased
Dilawar Singh and Balwant Singh was also associated
in the conspiracy along with Lakhwinder Singh and

864

all further operations were carried out from his
house and the same was used as a shelter place. And
thus, this circumstance clearly proves that accused
Gurmeet Singh and Lakhwinder Singh were part and
parcel of this conspiracy.

1330. Now let us take certain individual
circumstances against accused Lakhwinder Singh and
Gurmeet Singh, which further link them with this
conspiracy. First of all, let us take the evidence
of the prosecution in this regard qua accused
Gurmeet Singh individually.

The individual role of accused
Lakhwinder Singh.

1331. Now let us consider the evidence
which proves the individual role of accused
Lakhwinder Singh, in addition to his above
discussed joint role, which further fortifies the
case of the prosecution in this regard.

1332. As discussed earlier, it is proved
that this accused being a constable in the
Intelligence Wing of Punjab Police, was having an
advantage of free access in the secretariat and for
that, he was associated to keep track of the
movements of late CM as well as his programmes and
lastly to arrange a smooth entry in the precincts
of the Secretariat.

865

1333. In this regard, it is already proved
that accused Lakhwinder Singh, Gurmeet Singh,
deceased Dilawar Singh and Balwant Singh were old
friends and as such, they became members of this
conspiracy. Similarly, it is also proved that as
per their conspiracy accused Lakhwinder Singh took
deceased Dilawar Singh, accused Gurmeet Singh and
Balwant Singh to the shop of PW-51, Surinder Sharma
and the colour of the Car, Ex.P76 was got changed.

1334. In addition to this PW-116, Anil
Kumar, who is old friend of accused Lakhwinder
Singh, also deposed that 3-4 days prior to the
blast, accused Lakhwinder Singh visited his shop
along with Dalbir @ Maulla and asked him to alter a
khaki pant and to loose its waist to the maximum
possible and then he collected it back. No doubt,
this witness alleged that Dalbir Singh @ Maula was
with him at that time but Dalbir Singh @ Maulla has
not stated so. However, it makes no difference
because the fact remains that Lakhwinder Singh was
making preparations as per the conspiracy.

1335. It is further case of the prosecution
that after taking the delivery of car on 30.8.1995,
the main duty of Lakhwinder Singh was to stay at
Secretariat and to keep vigil on the whereabouts
and movements of late Beant Singh and to assist
accused Dilawar Singh and Jagtar Singh Tara for a

866

smooth entry in the building of the Secretariat and
the last duty of this accused was to drive the car
back after the blast but because of his ill-health
he was deputed to take stock of the things for
which he was also deputed in the Secretariat as
mentioned above.

1336. As per prosecution, on 31.8.1995, accused
Lakhwinder Singh went to Secretariat and started
waiting for the CM and his movements and when
Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh came to him in the
Secretariat in the after noon, he informed that
Beant Singh had already reached Secretariat and
after that accused Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh
went back and then returned back in the evening in
the car, along with accused Jagtar Singh Tara and
accused Lakhwinder Singh remained at Secretariat.
Immediately after the blast, he was spotted by so
many persons in the Secretariat including PW-114
Dalbir Singh @ Maulla as well as PW-69, Madanjit
Singh @ Channa and PW-187, Mewa Singh and when he
met PW-114 Dalbir Singh @ Maulla, on 2.9.1995, he
also made an extra judicial confession of the
conspiracy with all its details.

1337. Accordingly, after going through
the evidence of prosecution and on comparison of
the same with the above story, it comes out that
because of the following additional circumstances,
it is further proved that this accused was part and

867

parcel of this conspiracy.

CIRCUMSTANCE N0.1 :

Presence of this accused in the
Secretariat on 30.8.1995 and 31.8.1995 and
even after the blast vis-a-vis the plea of
alibi of this accused.

1338. As stated earlier, there is
sufficient evidence on the file, which proves that
as per their plan, accused Lakhwinder Singh was
spotted in the Secretariat to keep surveillance on
the movements of the Beant Singh and to know his
whereabouts .

1339. In this regard, first of all we have
the testimony of PW-97, Shanker Lai, who was
running a Dhaba in the canteen of Secretariat at
the relevant time and he deposed that on 31.8.1995
he was present at his Dhaba and at about 1.00 p.m,
Madanjit Singh @ Channa, came to his Dhaba for
taking lunch and during that PW-114, Dalbir Singh @
Maulla and accused Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, who
was already known to him, also came there and they
also took lunch and after taking the lunch, they
went away .

1340. It is further stated by this witness
that at that time, accused Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha
was clean shaven but at the time of his statement,

868

he was a baptised Sikh and as such he could not
identify him in the court. It was suggested to him
that accused Lakhwinder Singh was not clean shaven
and like a Hindu Gentleman at that time but he
denied this suggestion. However, whatever may be
the facts and circumstances, this witness was
already knowing this accused and the relevant fact
that he saw him in the Secretariat on 31.8.1995 is
duly proved.

1341. At the same time, PW-114 Dalbir Singh
@ Maulla deposed that on 31.8.1995, at about 12.00
noon, when he was present in the Secretariat near
Annapurna Dhaba, accused Balwant Singh met him on
his Scooter, with one person on pillion and asked
him about Lakhwinder Singh but he replied that he
does not know his whereabouts, on which he left
that place. After some time, accused Lakhwinder
Singh also came there and met near Annapurna Dhaba
and informed him that Balwant Singh is looking for
him, on which accused Lakhwinder Singh left towards
Secretariat .

1342. This witness further deposed that at
about 1.00 p.m., Lakhwinder Singh again met him and
on his asking, he accompanied him to his office and
then they went back to the Secretariat and after
leaving him at the tea shop of Mewa Singh,
Lakhwinder Singh went towards MT Section. After
sometime, Lakhwinder Singh returned back and then

869

both of them went to the dhaba of Shanker Yadav on
the Scooter of Lakhwinder Singh, where Madanjit
Singh Channa was already having his meal and they
joined him and after taking lunch, they returned
back to the room of Lakhwinder Singh.

1343. He further deposed that on 31.8.1995
in the evening when he was present near the Rock
Garden, he heard the blast and then at about 8.00
p.m., when he came to his shop of his brother,
accused Lakhwinder Singh met him there and
disclosed him that S.Beant Singh has been killed in
the bomb blast but he was perplexed at that time.

1344. As stated above, as per this witness,
on 2.9.1995, when he saw the photograph of the car
in the news paper, he asked Lakhwinder Singh that
it is the same car, which was taken by Balwant
Singh and Dilawar Singh from the shop of painter
and then Lakhwinder Singh asked him, 'yes', it is
the same vehicle and what should he do. Accused
Lakhwinder Singh also sought advise from this
witness as to whether he should run away and then
in the evening when PW-114 along with Surjit Singh
and Lakhwinder Singh assembled in the room of
C.Balwinder Singh in Village Kansal, accused
Lakhwinder Singh made an extra judicial confession
about his role in this bomb blast along with all
the details of the conspiracy and persons involved.
Even on 3.9.199 he and PW-69, again met Lakhwinder

870

Singh in his room at Village Kansal .

1345. Then, PW-69 also corroborated all the
facts as disclosed by PW-114. As per this witness,
he was also knowing accused Lakhwinder Singh
through PW-114, Dalbir Singh @ Maulla and he also
introduced Lakhwinder Singh with PW-51 Surinder
Sharma. He further deposed that in the year 1995,
accused Lakhwinder Singh was clean shaven and he
after identifying him in the court, further deposed
that accused Lakhwinder Singh also introduced him
with his friend Dilawar Singh, whose photograph he
identified in the court, as mark-TTT at point-A,
mark-TTT/1, mark-YY/3 to mark-YY/5.

1346. He further deposed that on 31.8.1995
at lunch time, he met accused Lakhwinder Singh @
Lakha at the dhaba of Shanker Yadav along with
Dalbir Singh @ Maulla and they all took lunch
together and then went to the house of accused
Lakhwinder Singh but came back immediately. Again
on 2.9.1995, he again met Lakhwinder Singh along
with Dalbir Singh @ Maulla and on their asking, he
accompanied them and then they took liquor
together .

1347. Even PW-185, Mewa Singh, who is
running a tea shop near the Secretariat, deposed
about the presence of Lakhwinder Singh in the
Secretariat on 30.8.1995 and 31.8.1995. As per this

871

witness, he was known to Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha,
who was working as a driver in MT Section of Punjab
Police and who was residing in Village Kansal . This
witness also proved that this accused was also
having a scooter bearing no. 2085 and he was also
knowing his friend Dalbir Singh @ Maulla and
Dilawar Singh.

1348. As per this witness, on 30.8.1995,
accused Lakhwinder Singh and his friend Dilawar
Singh visited his shop and he identified the
photograph of Dilawar Singh, Ex.PSSSSS and of
Lakhwinder Singh, Ex.PWlll/3. He also disclosed
that accused Dilawar Singh when came to his shop
asked for Lakhwinder Singh. He further deposed that
during investigations, he also identified the
photograph of one more person, who came with
Lakhwinder Singh as, Ex.PW185/A. He also deposed
that accused Lakhwinder Singh visited his shop for
the last time on 31.8.1995, along with his other
two companions at 4.00 p.m.

1349. Much has been argued by learned
defence counsel to challenge the testimony of all
the above mentioned witnesses. However, after
considering their cross examination, coupled with
the facts and circumstance of the case, it comes
out that there is nothing on the file to disbelieve
their version because had PW-97, Shanker Yadav
having any interest for the prosecution, he would

872

have identified accused Lakhwinder Singh in the
court. But he has stated the facts, which were in
his knowledge without any addition or improvement.

1350. Similarly, the association of accused
Lakhwinder Singh with Dalbir Singh @ Maulla is also
duly proved on the file and there is nothing on the
file to disbelieve his testimony. Simply because of
the fact that Dalbir Singh @ Maulla is not a man of
high status and for that matter, he is drug addict
also is not sufficient to disbelieve his testimony.
Above all, the stand of both these witnesses is
further corroborated by PW-101, Satwinder Pal Singh
@ Simpi, who has also identified accused Lakhwinder
Singh as one of the persons, who was present in the
room of Gurmeet Singh.

1351. Resultantly, from the testimony of
all these witnesses, which is based on proved
facts, it is proved that from 30.8.1995 onwards
accused Lakhwinder Singh was very much present at
Chandigarh and he was also present in the
Secretariat and this fact proves that he was
performing his duties being conspirator regarding
the movements of Beant Singh and informing his co-
conspirators about the same and the stand taken by
accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh Tara in
their confession, in this regard, is duly
substantiated .

873

1352. To know the role of this accused,
there was no necessity to discuss the evidence of
all the above discussed witnesses. However, the
reason for the same, is that counsel for accused
Lakhwinder Singh has put forward a plea of alibi
for Lakhwinder Singh, saying that he was
transferred as a gunman with the deceased Member of
Parliament, Surinder Singla and he had already
joined his duty with him at Delhi, as proved on the
file by DW-12 and if it is so, there is no question
of his presence and participation in the conspiracy
during the material period from 25.8.1995 to
31 . 8 .1995 .

1353. However, after going through this
aspect coupled with the contention of learned
Public Prosecutor, it comes out that accused
Lakhinder Singh has failed to prove his plea of
alibi with cogent and reliable evidence.

1354. Admittedly, he has examined DW-12,
S.K.Singh, who being an employee of the Office of
SP Security, Punjab, deposed that on 11.7.1995,
C. Lakhwinder Singh was directed to report to
Sh. Surinder Singla, the then Member of Parliament
as driver and as per the DDR No . 9 dt . 11 . 7 . 1 995, he
was relieved with directions to join there.

1355. However, the question comes whether
this testimony is sufficient to conclude that

874

accused Lakhwinder Singh joined his duties at Delhi
and if it was so, he never returned back to
Chandigarh. However, the answer is obviously in
negative because it is well settled principle of
law that plea of alibi, is guestion of fact, which
must be substantiated on record with proper
evidence. However, in the present case this fact is
missing as even DW-12, S.K.Singh has admitted that
he can not say, whether C. Lakhwinder Singh actually
joined his duties as driver with Surinder Singla,
as per the relieving order and if so, for what
period and on what days he actually remained with
him .

1356. Side by side, it is also alleged by

accused Lakhwinder Singh that on 1.9.1995, when he
came to Chandigarh to take his salary, he was
arrested in this case. However, no record
whatsoever has been brought on the file by the
accused to prove that he actually joined his duties
with Surinder Singla, stated to be dead now, then
MP and remained with him till 1.9.1995 and thus, he
failed to prove his so called plea of alibi. Even
if it is believed that Surinder Singla, MP is no
more, this fact can be proved from other available
evidence but as stated earlier, no such statement
has been brought despite the fact that the onus to
prove to this fact was upon accused Lakhwinder
Singh .

875

1357. Needless to say, a plea of alibi is a
defence, which is required to be proved by the
accused and no benefit of deficiency of evidence on
that aspect, from the side of prosecution can be
made basis to decide that plea, as settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Thakur Prasad Vs. State of
MP, AIR, 1954, SC, page 30. Thus the fact remain
that there is no evidence on the file to say that
accused Lakhwinder Singh had joined his duties at
Delhi and as such he was not present at Chandigarh.

1358. On the contrary, the entire factual
evidence as discussed above shows that this accused
was very much present in Chandigarh during the time
of this conspiracy from 25.8.1995 to 31.8.1995 and
even thereafter from 1.9.1995 till his arrest.

1359 As far as the plea of learned defence

counsel that the service record of accused
Lakhwinder Singh has not been brought to prove his
transfer orders is concerned, it makes no
difference because the question of his joining at
Delhi has not been proved on the file, even if it
is presumed that he was transferred from
Chandigarh .

1360. No doubt, learned defence counsel has

pointed out certain contradictions and

discrepancies in the testimony of PW-97, PW-114,
PW-69, PW-185 but needless to say all those

876

contradictions are irrelevant and have no affect on
the otherwise proved stand of all these witnesses
as to the presence of accused Lakhwinder Singh at
Chandigarh, during the period of this conspiracy
and thus, this circumstance complete the chain of
link as far as the role of accused Lakhwinder Singh
with the conspiracy is concerned.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 2 :

Use of Scooter No.PCP-2085 of Lakhwinder
Singh in the conspiracy.

1361. It is already proved on the file that
in the entire conspiracy accused Lakhwinder Singh,
has used a scooter No.PCP-2085. This scooter has
been used by Lakwhinder Singh as well as his co-
accused, in the preparations of this conspiracy.
However, the disputed fact in this regard is as to
the ownership of the scooter, as it has been argued
by the learned defence counsel that there is no
evidence on the file to prove that this scooter was
actually owned by Lakhwinder Singh.

1362. However there is not much controversy
on this aspect, as admittedly in the record of
Registering Authority, this scooter is still shown
in the name of Harjit Singh but it does not mean
that he never sold it. On the other hand, PW-47
Harjit Singh, who was the registered owner of this
scooter, when appeared in the witness box, deposed

877

that after purchasing the scooter from PW-45, Vijay
Kumar Chopra, he further sold the same to PW-54,
Deep Inder Mehta alias Vipin in the presence of PW-
46 Manjit Singh and executed all the documents for
the transfer of the same along with an affidavit
and handed over the scooter to him. PW-46 Manjit
Singh also corroborated the stand of this witness
in toto.

1363. Similarly PW-45, Vijay Kumar Chopra
has proved the factum of sale of scooter to PW-47
Harjit Singh. In addition to this, PW-54 Deep Inder
Mehta has deposed that he had purchased the scooter
from PW-47, Harjit Singh and later on he sold the
scooter to Lakhwinder Singh, who was known to him
and after taking the entire sale consideration, he
handed over the scooter to Lakhwknder Singh as per
the receipt, Ex.PW-54/1, which is signed by the
parents of Lakhwinder Singh, as he wanted to get it
transferred in their name.

1364. In addition to this, it is already
discussed that PW-51, Surinder Sharma, PW-69
Madanjit Singh alias Chhanna, PW-114 Dalbir Singh
alias Maula, PW-116 Anil Kumar, a Tailor Master of
Village, PW-97 Shankar Yadav, PW-185 Mewa Singh
and PW-113 Surinder Kumar, who all are the old
friends of Lakhwinder Singh, have categorically
deposed that accused Lakhwinder Singh was having
this scooter and it is further proved on the file

878

that during the period 26.8.1995 to 31.8.1995 and
even thereafter, this scooter was in possession of
accused Lakhwinder Singh and the same was used by
him and his co-accused persons in connection with
this conspiracy.

1365. Not even this, on 5.9.1995, when
accused Lakhwinder Singh was arrested, he was
driving this very scooter and the same was also
taken into possession after his arrest, which
further shows that this scooter was purchased by
him from PW-54 and was used by him in this
conspiracy .

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 3 :

Recovery of slip Ex.PW51/3, containing
signatures and hand writing of Lakhwinder
Singh, to the effect that he wants death
of CM Punjab.

1366. One of the circumstances relied upon
by the prosecution to link accused Lakhwinder Singh
with this conspiracy is, that on 5.9.1995, when he
was arrested, in the presence of PW-51, along with
his scooter no. PCP-2085, Article Ex.P80, on his
personal search, some papers were recovered
including slip, Ex.PW51/3 which were taken into
possession as per memo, Ex.PW51/2.

1367. As far as the plea of learned defence
counsel that the recovery of this slip from the

879

possession of the accused is doubtful and can not
be believed, is concerned, there is nothing on the
file to say so because this slip was recovered
during the search of the accused Lakhwinder Singh
in the presence of PW-51, whose testimony is held
to be cogent and reliable and as to how and why the
accused was keeping this slip with him can only be
explained by the accused, as there is nothing on
the file to say that it was fabricated or procured.
It was taken into possession immediately when it
was recovered and both PW-51 and another witness
Balwinder Singh, have signed this slip. Thus, this
circumstance further corroborates the case of the
prosecution and the role and participation of this
accused in the entire conspiracy.

1368. To prove that this slip bears the

signatures and hand writing of accused Lakhwinder
Singh, the prosecution has examined PW-59,
C. Balwinder Singh, who was a co-employee of this
accused working in the same security wing of the
Punjab Police and he accordingly deposed that he
had the occasion to see accused Lakhwinder Singh
while writing and signing documents and during the
investigations, when slip, Ex.PW51/3 was shown to
him, he identified and stated that it contains the
hand writing and signatures of Lakhwinder Singh. He
also identified the hand writing and signatures of
accused Lakhwinder Singh on the account opening
form Ex.P59/J, on his leave applications Ex.PW59/A

880

to Ex.PW59/D. Bank deposit slips Ex.PW59/E to
Ex. PW59/I .

1369. In addition to the testimony of PW-
59, the questioned writing and signature of
accused, Lakhwinder Singh, on the slip, Ex.PW51/3,
as well as on the bank deposit slips, were examined
by PW-166 T.R.Nehra, a document expert and he as
per his report, Ex.PW166/26, found that the
question signatures and hand writings, mark as Q-l
to Q-4 on Ex.PW51/3, Ex.PW59/E to Ex.PW59/I and
Ex.PW51/5 are similar to the specimen hand writing
and signatures of Lakhwinder Singh, marked as A-l
to A-4, on the leave application of Lakhwinder
Singh, Ex.PW59/A to Ex.PW59/D and on the passport
file of accused Lakhwinder Singh mark A-89 to A-97,
as well as the specimen hand writing and signatures
of this accused taken in the presence of PW-105, on
the sheets, Ex.PW105/62 to Ex.PW105/20, marked by
the expert, as S-65 to S-123.

1370. It is already held that the plea of
learned defence counsel regarding taking of
specimen hand writing and signature of accused,
without the consent of the accused and orders of
the Magistrate, is without any force as there was
no such legal requirement at that time ad the CBI
was competent to do so under section 4 of Prisoners
Identification Act.

881

1371. As far as the plea of learned defence
counsel that PW-166 T.R.Nehra, in his cross
examination admitted that these hand writings did
not match with each other, is concerned, there is
no such admission on the part of T.R.Nehra in this
regard. On the contrary, he has denied the
suggestion that the disputed hand writing and
signatures of Lakhwinder Singh, Q-l to Q-4 are
different from the specimen hand writing of accused
Lakhwinder Singh. As such, the facts disclosed by
PW-59 are corroborated by the expert and if it is
so, the guestion comes how the slip, Ex.PW51/3 is
relevant for this case.

1372. As discussed earlier on the slip
Ex.PW51/3, accused Lakhwinder Singh has written
that "I want death only CM Punjab, you know the
time after p.m". It also bears the signatures of
accused Lakhwinder Singh. The language of this slip
clearly spells out that he being a part and parcel
of this conspiracy was having every intention to
kill the CM Punjab.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 4 :

Extra judicial confession of Lakhwinder
Singh before PW-114.

1373. As discussed earlier, PW-114, while

giving his association with accused Lakhwinder

882

Singh and his other friends, also deposed that on
2.9.1995, when he and Lakhwinder Singh went to the
house of C.Baljinder Singh to take liquor, accused
Lakhwinder Singh disclosed him about his role in
the conspiracy and admitted that Dilawar Singh had
killed the CM by this bomb blast and he along with
Balwant Singh and Hawara etc are involved in the
bomb blast and he is apprehending that police might
kill him. Even on the morning of 2.9.1995, when PW-
114 confronted Lakhwinder Singh, on seeing the
photograph of the car in the news paper, accused
Lakhwinder Singh admitted that it is the same car,
which was taken by accused Balwant Singh and
Dilawar Singh.

1374. This stand of PW-114 was challenged

by the learned defence counsels on various grounds
firstly that as per PW-114, accused Lakhwinder
Singh has made this confession while he was drunk
and as such this confession is not admissible in
evidence and secondly, why accused Lakhwinder Singh
would make this confession to PW-140, who is a
simple and poor person and who can not help him in
any manner. And lastly that this confession can not
be considered as admissible evidence as neither it
was complete nor clear and at the same time, it was
not voluntarily made by the accused Lakhwinder
Singh. With these averments, he alleged that no
benefit of this stand of PW-114 can be given to the
prosecution .

883

1375. However, after going through the
statement and other surrounding circumstances, it
comes out that there is no merit in any of the
grounds put forward by the learned defence counsel
to challenge the making of extra judicial
confession by accused Lakhwinder Singh, before PW-
114 .

1376. Before taking the technical grounds,
let us see whether the extra judicial confession
made by accused Lakhwinder Singh before PW-114 is
voluntarily made and what is legal position in this
regard .

1377. As far as the legal position relating
to the relevancy of extra judicial confession and
how it is to be proved, is concerned, in State of
Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram,V (2003) SLT 45-111(2003)
CCR 189 (SC)-2003 8 SCC 180, it was held that

"An extra judicial confession, if
voluntary and true and made in a fit state
of mind, can be relied upon by the Court.
The confession will have to be proved like
any other fact. The value of the evidence
as to confession, like any other evidence,
depends upon the veracity of the witness
to whom it has been made. The value of the
evidence as to the confession depends on
the reliability of the witness who gives
the evidence. It is not open to any Court
to start with a presumption that extra
judicial confession is a weak type of
evidence. It would depend on the nature of

884

the circumstances, the tie when the
confession was made and the credibility of
the witnesses who speak to such a
confession. Such a confession can be
relied upon and conviction can be founded
thereon if the evidence about the
confession comes from the mouth of
witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not
even remotely inimical to the accused, and
in respect of whom nothing is brought out
which may tend to indicate that he may
have a motive of attributing an untruthful
statement to the accused, the words spoken
to by the witness are clear, unambiguous
and unmistakably convey that the accused
is the perpetrator of the crime and
nothing is omitted by the witness which
may militate against it. After subjecting
the evidence of the witness to a rigorous
test on the touchstone of credibility ,
the extra judicial confession can be the
basis of a conviction if it passes the
test of credibility."

It was further observed :

"20. If the evidence relating to extra
judicial confession is found credible
after being tested on the touchstone of
credibility and acceptability, it can
solely form the basis of conviction . The
requirement of corroboration as rightly
submitted by the learned Counsel for the
respondent-accused, is a matter of
prudence and not an invariable rule of
law"

1378. Then in the case of Gagan Kanojia and

Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, IX (2006) SLT 406= (2007)
CR 89 (SC)=Criminal Appeal Nos. 561-62 and 563 of
2005, decided on 24.11.2006 , the Hon'ble Apex
Court opined:

885

"Extra- Judicial confession as is well
known, can form the basis of a conviction.
By way of abundant caution, however the
Court may look for some corroboration.
Extra judicial confession can not ipso
facto be termed to be tainted. An extra-
judicial confession, if made voluntarily
and proved can be relied upon by the
Courts . "

137 9. Similarly, in Nazir Khan & Others Vs.

State of Delhi, V (2003) SLT 14-111 (2003) CCR 173
(SC)=106 (2003) DLT 70(SC)= 2003 8 SCC 461, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

"A free and voluntary confession is
deserving of the highest credit , because
it is presumed to flow from the highest
sense of guilty"

1380. Similarly, in Kishore Chand

Vs.Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1990 Supreme Court, page
2140 the Hon'ble Apex Court again reiterated the
same principle and held as under:

"An unambiguous extra-judicial confession
assesses high probative value force as it
emanates from the person who committed
the crime and is admissible in evidence
provided is free from suspicion and
suggestion of its falsity. But in the
process of the proof of the alleged
confession the Court has to be satisfied
that it is a voluntary one and does not
appear to be result of inducement, threat
or promise envisaged under S.24 or was
brought about in suspicious circumstances

886

to circumstance Ss.25 and 26. Therefore,
the Court has to look into the
surrounding circumstances and to find
whether the extra judicial confession is
not inspired by any improper or
collateral consideration or circumvention
of the law suggesting that it may not be
true one. For this purpose the Court must
scrutinize all the relevant facts such as
the person to whom the confession is
made, the time and place of making it, the
circumstances in which it was made and
finally the actual words used by the
accused. Extra-judicial confession if
found to be voluntary can be relied upon
by the Court along with other evidence on
record. Therefore, even the extra
judicial confession will also have to be
proved like any other fact. The value of
the evidence as to the confession depends
upon the veracity of the witness to whom
it is made and the circumstances in which
it came to be made and the actual words
used by the accused. Some times it may
not be possible to the witness to
reproduce the actual words in which the
confession was made. For that reason the
law insists on recording the statement by
a Judicial Magistrate after administering
all necessary warnings to the accused
that it would be used as evidence against
him. "

1381. Recently, in Kulwinder Singh Vs.

State of Punjab, II (2007) SLT 225=Criminal Appeal
No. 675 of 2006. decided on 5.12.2006, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that:

"the evidentiary value of an extra
judicial confession must be judged in the
fact situation obtaining in each case. It
would depend not only on the nature of

887

the circumstances but also the time when
the confession had been made and the
credibility of the witness who testifies
thereto . "

1382. The above discussed legal principles
were also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a
most recent case Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors Vs. State
of West Bengal CCR 2007 S.C, 391.

1383. Applying the above settled
propositions of law to the facts in hand, it comes
out that, it is proved on the file, beyond any
reasonable doubt, that PW-114, Dalbir Singh @
Maulla, was a very close friend of accused
Lakhwinder Singth and both of them used to meet
almost for every day and as such both of them were
having confidence in each other and if it is so
there was every possibility that the accused
Lakhwinder Singh, who was very frightened and
perturbed about the whole episode as well as the
death of his friend, Dilawar Singh in the episode,
was eager to express his feelings that too with a
intention to seek advise of his friend, as to what
should he do as he was apprehending danger to his
life in the hands of the Police.

1384. As far as the plea of learned defence
counsel that this confession was made by accused
Lakhwinder Singh, when he was drunk, is concerned,
this plea is totally mis-conceived because PW-114
has nowhere admitted that accused Lakhwinder Singh

888

was drunk, when he made this confession. On the
contrary, the testimony of PW-114 shows that on
2.9.1995 in the morning, when he confronted
Lakhwinder Singh about the photograph of the car
published in the news paper, he admitted that it is
the same car which has been taken by accused
Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh and even at that
time, he indirectly admitted his role when he
sought the advise of PW-114 as to whether he should
run away.

1385. Not even this, even thereafter, when
PW-114 along with Lakhwinder Singh, went to the
house of C.Baljinder Singh, accused Lakhwinder
Singh suffered this extra judicial confession, not
after taking the liguor but immediately after
reaching the house of C.Baljinder Singh, when
Surjit Singh, who was also with them, went inside
the house. No doubt, thereafter they might have
taken liquor but this does not mean that the extra
judicial confession made by accused Lakhwinder
Singh was under influence of liquor.

1386. Even PW-114 has not been cross
examined by the learned defence counsel on this
aspect. On the contrary, he stated that the
confession made by accused Lakhwinder Singh at
about 8.30 p.m, when they reached in the room of
C.Baljinder Singh and this fact further shows that
this confession was made before taking the liquor.

889

In these circumstances, the authority relied upon
by learned defence counsel on this plea, entitled
C . K . Ravindern Versus State of Kerala, AIR, 2000,
page 369, is not applicable to the facts in hand
because in that case the person before whom the
extra judicial confession was made, take liquor and
after the consumption of the liquor the confession
was made and on those facts, it was found to be not
voluntarily made. However, in the present case as
stated earlier, this aspect is missing.

1387. At the same time, it is also proved
that PW-114 was very confident friend of Lakhwinder
Singh and as such he was having full faith and
understanding with him and thus made the extra
judicial confession. In Gopi Chand Vs. State of
Haryana, 2005 (4), RCR, Criminal, page 778, the
person before whom the confession was made, was
declared hostile as he failed to corroborate the
making of the confession before him and in addition
to this there was no relationship between the
witness and the accused. However, in the present
case, it is proved that PW-114 was confident of
accused and was also his friend and if it is so,
the confession made to him is voluntarily made and
legally admissible.

1388. No doubt, in State of U.T Vs. Rakesh
Kumar, 2002 (3), RCC, page 472, the Hon'ble Punjab
& Haryana High Court held that in case of

890

circumstantial evidence, extra judicial confession
is weak type of confession and can not be acted
upon unless corroborated, but in the present case
the facts stated by the accused in his extra
judicial confession before PW-114 are further
corroborated from the other circumstantial evidence
as discussed above.

1389. At the same time, in Ajay Singh Vs.
State of Maharashtra, 2007 (3) RCR, Criminal, page
348, the Hon'ble Apex Court again reiterated the
well settled proposition of law that an extra
judicial confession, if proved to have been made
voluntarily, can be relied upon to convict a
accused and it is not required that the actual
words stated by the accused should be repeated and
if the substance of the confession has been proved,
it is sufficient to link him.

1390. As far as the question of
corroboration, is concerned, in State of Karnatka
Vs. MM. Ram Dass, AIR, 2002, Supreme Court, 3109,

the Hon'ble Apex Court again reiterated that the
evidence in the form of extra judicial confession
made by the accused to a witness can not be always
termed to be a tainted evidence. Corroboration of
such evidence is required only by way of abundant
caution. If the court believes the witness before
whom the confession is made and is satisfied that
the confession has been true and voluntarily made

891

then conviction can be founded on such evidence
alone as as unambiguous extra judicial confession
possess high probative value force as it emanates
from the person, who committed the crime and is
admissible in evidence provided it is free from
suspicion and suggestion of any falsity and free
from any collateral consideration etc. Accordingly,
in the present case, this fact is duly proved.

1391. In Heramba Brahma Vs. State of

Assam's case (Supra), the extra judicial confession
was made before an under trial, without
ascertaining the credentials of the witness before
whom it was made and thus it was disbelieved but in
the present case, it has been made to a friend in
whom this accused was having full confidence and
who had kept the confidence intact as PW-114 has
not informed the police till the arrest of the
accused .

13 92. Similarly in Sinder Pal Singh's case

(Supra) , the confession was made after 17 days of
the commission of the crime and thus found to be
unreliable. But in this case, the confession has
been made within 2 days of the occurrence and thus
this authority is of no help to the defence.

1393. The above discussed legal and factual

position spells out that this circumstance of
making extra judicial confession by the accused

892

clinches the entire issue qua
alone to convict him as
conspiracy, as per their plan.

him
a

and is
member

sufficient
of this

CIRCUMSTANCE NO 5

Expert evidence, as to the presence of
finger prints of this accused on Car,
Ex.P76.

1394. As discussed and held earlier, PW-178
after comparing the chance finger prints lifted
from the car at the time of inspection, with the
specimen finger prints of the accused persons, came
to the conclusion that one of the chance finger
prints, mark Q-4, on the rear view mirror of the
car, matches with the specimen finger print of
accused Lakhwinder Singh, as per the reasons
mentioned in his report, Ex.PW178/5 and Ex.PW178/6.

1395. Report of this witness has been
challenged by learned defence counsel, firstly, on
the ground of non-taking of permission of the
Magistrate and secondly the consent of the accused
while taking the specimen finger prints. However,
it is already held that both these grounds are not
available to the accused to challenge the report of
experts, as there was no such requirement of law in
this regard, whereas the CBI was competent to take
the handwriting and thumb impression under section
4 of the Prisoners Identification Act.

893

1396. At the same time, PW-115, S.S.Basoya,
Junior Scientific Officer of CFSL, Chandigarh
deposed that on 7.9.1995, on the asking of the CBI,
he obtained the specimen finger prints of accused
Lakhwinder Singh on 12 sheets, Ex.PW115/l to
Ex.PW115/12, marked SFP-14 to SFP-25 by the expert.
He further deposed that later on 12.10.1995, he
again went to Burail Jail and took further finger
prints of accused Lakhwinder Singh on two sheets,
Ex.PW115/13 and Ex.PW115/14. He further deposed
that when he obtained the finger prints of
Lakhwinder Singh, he was clean shaven and he can
identify him, if shown clean shaven and then he
identified photographs, Ex.PWlll/3 and mark-OOOOO,
which were of accused Lakhwinder Singh. At the same
time, no suggestion was put to him that accused
Lakhwinder Singh lodged protest and refused to give
specimen hand writing and finger prints or that the
same were same by force or under pressure.

1397. He has also denied the suggestion
that the finger prints of accused Laknhwinder Singh
were also obtained on the rear view mirror forcibly
and thereafter the chance print photographs were
taken to link him with the case. This suggestion of
learned defence counsel shows that he is not
disputing the presence of finger prints of
Lakhwinder Singh on the car but he tried to allege
that those were taken on the rear view mirror

894

forcibly
specimen
evidence

and then those were compared with
finger prints, whereas there is
on the file to believe this assertion.

the
no

1398. Now let us see whether the opinion of
PW-178 is successfully challenged by the learned
defence counsel. In this regard, the plea of
learned defence counsel is that first of all the
finger print expert is required to match the
pattern of both the disputed and the admitted
finger prints and if the patterns are different, it
is conclusive proof that the impressions are of
different persons. However, if patterns are the
similar, the core and delta should be located.

1399. However, in the presence case, PW-
178, during his cross examination failed to
substantiate his report, EX.PW178/5 and admitted
that the specimen finger prints of accused
Lakhwinder Singh are different from the questioned
finger prints Q-4 as to its character as well as
formation of pattern. To substantiate this, he
alleged that it is admitted case of PW-178 that the
questioned finger, print Q-4 on the annexure,
Ex.PW178/7, which is the photograph of chance
finger print, is of double loop composite pattern.
Whereas the specimen finger prints of Lakhwinder
Singh is of different kind.

1400. However, after considering the

895

contention of learned defence counsel and after
scrutinizing the reports and the photographs of
both the disputed and the specific thumb
impression, mark Q-4 and LTS-24, along with the
literature on this aspect from the book authored by
Dr . B . R . Sharma, a known finger print expert, Punjab,
it comes out that as found by PW-178, both the
finger prints Q-4 and LTS-24 are of double loop
composite pattern and then there are identical
ridge characteristics between both the finger
prints and all the nine similarities found by PW-
178, as mentioned in the report, Ex.PW178/6 are
available and justified from the comparison of Q-4,
chance finger print, with LTS-24, a specimen finger
print of accused Lakhwinder Singh.

1401. At the same time, it is also proved

on the file that on 26.8.1995, it was accused
Lakhwinder Singh, who accompanied deceased Dilawar
Singh, Gurmeet etc. to the shop of PW-51 and as
such there is every possibility of presence of his
finger prints on the car, specially when PW-51 has
categorically stated that he knows the accused
Lakhwinder Singh personally and on his asking, he
took the job of repainting of the car. It is also
proved that even thereafter accused Lakhwinder
Singh remained associated in the conspiracy
including the handling of the car, as on 31.8.1995
in the morning he and accused Gurmeet Singh joined
Balwant Singh and Dilawar Singh at the house of PW-

896

99 and then reached the Secretariat in the Car,
which further justifies his finger prints on the
car. Thus, there is nothing on the file to say
that the report of this witness is not admissible
in evidence. On the contrary, it is well settled
principle of law that science of finger print is
perfect science and the report of such experts is a
substantive evidence.

1402. In view of the above discussed legal
and factual position, it comes out that the
prosecution has successfully proved that both
accused Lakhwinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh joined
the conspiracy with a clear mind, fully knowing the
objective of conspiracy and did different acts of
omission and commission, as per the role assigned
to them in the conspiracy, which was masterminded
and coordinated by accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, as
proved above and thus duly linked them with the
conspiracy with cogent and reliable evidence.

CASE AGAINST ACCUSED NASIB SINGH.

1403. Now let us take up the case of
accused Nasib Singh and to see whether the
prosecution has been able to prove that he was also
part and parcel of this conspiracy and as per the
same, he abetted the commission of crime, by
keeping the RDX in his house, fully knowing that it
is going to be used for the murder of Beant Singh.

897

1404. In this regard, it is alleged by the

prosecution that during the interrogations accused
Jagtar Singh Tara, he disclosed that the RDX was
brought by accused Jagtar Singh Hawara from the
house of accused Nasib Singh situated in Village
Jhingran Kalan and on his identification that house
was found to be owned by accused Nasib Singh and
accordingly he was arrested and when interrogated,
he made a disclosure statement as to the
concealment of the RDX in his house on the asking
of accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and thereafter it
was recovered from his house and found to be 13.700
kg. RDX, which he kept concealed in his house being
part and parcel of this conspiracy, fully knowing
that it is going to be used for the killing of
Beant Singh and thus, he is also liable to be
punished as a co-conspirator.

1405. On the other hand the case of defence
counsel is that this accused has been falsely
implicated by showing the recovery of RDX just to
link him, without there being any evidence to show
that he was ever associated in the conspiracy at
any stage.

1406. To substantiate this, the learned
defence counsel stated that there are more than
sufficient reasons, which show that this accused
has no concern, whatsoever with this crime. First

898

of all, it is undisputed case of the prosecution
that in all the disclosure statements of accused
Balwant Singh, Jagtar Sigh Hawara and Jagtar Singh
Tara and even in the confessions of accused Balwant
Singh and Jagtar Singh Tara, there is no mention of
the name of this accused as well as accused Navjot
Singh .

1407. Secondly, the case of prosecution
that the name of this accused surfaced in the
disclosure statement of accused Jagtar Singh Tara,
is also baseless because as is clear from
Ex.PW80/l, the alleged disclosure statement of
accused Jagtar Singh Tara, the name of this accused
is no where mentioned. On the contrary, he has
simply disclosed that he can identify the place and
house from where accused Jagtar Singh Hawara has
brought the RDX . If it is so, there is no evidence
on the file to show how the name of this accused
surfaced .

1408. At the same time, accused Jagtar
Singh Tara has also not even disclosed that he
knows the accused and the owner of house, from
where the RDX was brought by Jagtar Singh Hawara.
On the contrary, he alleged that after stopping the
car on the outskirts of village Jhingran Kalan,
Jagtar Singh Hawara went inside the Village and
came back after sometime on a bicycle with two bags
along with a girl. This fact further shows that the

899

prosecution
Nasib Singh

has failed to show how
was named with this case.

the

accused

1409. He next submitted that once the
prosecution came to know that accused Nasib Singh
is related with this conspiracy and kept RDX in his
house, there was no requirement to record his
disclosure statement but in this case, the
prosecution opted to record the disclosure
statement of the accused, that too, without
arresting him, as admitted by PW-243, A.P.Singh.

1410. At the same time, it is alleged by
the prosecution that two independent witnesses Naib
Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of Village Jhingran Kalan along
with PW-81, Raghubir Singh, then Sarpanch were
present, when the disclosure statement and recovery
of the RDX was made.

1411. However, during the trial, Naib Singh
has not been examined by the prosecution, whereas
PW-81, Raghubir Singh has failed to corroborate
this story of the prosecution. On the contrary, he
deposed that accused Nasib Singh never made any
disclosure statement in his presence nor any
recovery was made in his presence. As such the
entire story of prosecution to link this accused
with the case, fall like a house of cards and goes
to prove that he has been falsely implicated.

900

1412. Keeping in view the above discussed
contentions of both the parties, let us consider
whether the prosecution has successfully proved
that accused Nasib Singh, being part and parcel and
a co-conspirator of this conspiracy, used to keep
arms and ammunition of his co-accused persons and
used to provide shelter to accused Jagtar Singh
Hawara. And after his arrest suffered a disclosure
statement, Ex.PW81/l and got recovered 13.700 kg of
RDX, which was concealed by him in his house fully
knowing that it is being used for killing of Beant
Singh .

1413. To consider this aspect, first of
all, let us scan the evidence of prosecution as to
how the name of this accused surfaced. In this
regard, after going through the evidence of
prosecution, it comes out that it is undisputed
case of the prosecution that after the arrest of
accused Lakhwinder Singh and Gurmit Singh on
5.9.1995 and after the surface of the name of
accused Dilawar Singh, Balwant Singh, Jagtar Singh
Hawara and even after the arrest of accused Jagtar
Singh Tara, on 13.9.1995, the name of this accused,
as a co-conspirator, has not came on record in
black and white till 18.9.1995.

1414. However, on 18.9.1995, when accused
Jagtar Tara suffered a disclosure statement,
Ex.PW80/l, though he has no where disclosed the

901

name of this accused, as the owner of the house
from where accused Jagtar Singh Hawara has brought
the RDX but he disclosed that he can locate that
house. Thus, from the disclosure statement of this
accused, it is proved that he was knowing about the
location of the house from where the RDX was
brought .

1415. At the same time, even in the
confession of accused Balwant Singh, it is
disclosed that when he along with remaining accused
persons started for Chandigarh, on the way, accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara and Jagtar Singh Tara went to a
village and came back with the RDX, without naming
the village or the name of the owner. Similarly,
accused Jagtar Singh Tara in his confession,
Ex.PW86/6, categorically confessed that on the
asking of accused Jagtar Singh Tara, he turned the
car towards Jhingran Kalan and on reaching there
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, went in village and
brought the RDX on a bicycle with the girl, who
took the bicycle back and thereafter they reached
the house of Gurmeet Singh.

1416. It is already held that the
confession of both these accused persons is
admissible in evidence against them and thus it
goes to prove that the RDX was brought from Village
Jhingran Kalan. However, from these facts, one
thing is clear that there was no evidence with

902

prosecution as to the involvement of
till 15-9-95, when accused Jagtar
allegedly disclosed his name.

this accused
Singh Tara

1417. Above all, it is concurrent stand of
PW-248, S.N.Saxena, Chief Investigating Officer and
PW-243, A.P.Singh, who arrested and investigated
case against this accused, that during the
interrogations, accused Jagtar Singh Tara disclosed
that he can took the police party to that house and
accordingly, when accused Jagtar Singh Hawara was
taken to Village Jhingran Kalan, he himself led the
police party and pointed out the house, from where
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, picked up the bag of
RDX on 25.8.1995 and where some more RDX is still
kept as disclosed by accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
and then only he came to know about the name of
this accused.

1418. In this regard, PW-243 has deposed
that after he came to know that the house belongs
to accused Nasib Singh and to start further
proceedings, he called two independent witnesses of
the village namely, PW-81, Raghubir Singh, then
Sarpanch of the Village and Naib Singh, Ex-Sarpanch
and thereafter he arrested accused Nasib Singh in
their presence and when interrogated him, he
suffered a disclosure statement, Ex.PW81/l, in
which he disclosed that Jagtar Singh Hawara has
handed over some RDX to him to kept concealed the

903

same in his house and out of that he had already
taken some part on 25.8.1995 and the rest is still
with him and he had kept concealed the same in the
fodder room of his cow shed and he can get it
recovered .

1419. As stated earlier, the defence has
challenged the recording of disclosure statement of
accused firstly saying that once accused Jagtar
Singh Tara disclosed that some RDX is still lying
in that house and then he pointed out and
identified that house, there was no need to record
the disclosure statement of Nasib Singh, that too,
without arresting him in the case. On the contrary,
the police can recover the same and secondly that
the two independent witnesses before whom Jagtar
Singh Tara has made the disclosure statement have
not been joined in these proceedings.

1420. However, after going through the
facts and circumstance of the case, it comes out
that accused Jagtar Singh Tara has nowhere
disclosed the name of the owner of the house from
where he had brought the RDX, in his disclosure
statement and if it was so, when he pointed out and
identified that house, the police cannot raid the
same as the disclosure made by the co-accused was
not admissible against Nasib Singh and the only
remedy with the police was to arrest the accused
Nasib Singh and then to interrogate him to know the

904

real facts .

1421. Similarly, non joining of the two
witnesses, who were present during the statement of
Jagtar Singh Tara was immaterial for the
proceedings at Village Jhingran Kalan. On the
contrary, as per the requirement of the law, PW-243
had joined two independent witnesses of Village
Jhingran Kalan and then arrested accused Nasib
Singh and conducted further proceedings in their
presence .

1422. No doubt, as argued by learned
defence counsel, the disclosure statement of a
witness can not be recorded unless he is in the
custody of the Police but in this case, it is
categorically stated by PW-243 that on reaching
Village Jhingran Kalan and on the identification of
the house from where the RDX was brought by Jagtar
Singh Hawara by, he learnt that the said house
belongs to accused Nasib Singh, who was found
present and then he was arrested by him and
thereafter his disclosure statement was recorded.
If it is so, it is proved that till the arrest of
accused Nasib Singh, the police was not knowing as
to where the RDX has been concealed and in these
circumstances, the only option with the
Investigating Agency was to interrogate him and to
know his stand.

905

1423. As far as the plea of learned defence

counsel that PW-248, S.N.Saxena, the Chief
Investigating Officer, was already knowing the name
of Nasib Singh and the factum of keeping RDX by him
in his house and as such there was no need to
record the disclosure statement of accused Nasib
Singh, is concerned, again there is no force in
this plea because PW-248 has explained that the
involvement of accused Nasib Singh came to the
light during the interrogation of accused Jagtar
Singh Tara but by saying so he was deposing as to
the entire chain of circumstances to link all the
accused persons and this does not mean that he was
already knowing the name of Nasib Singh and
therefore, directed PW-243 to arrest him.

1424. On the contrary, during his cross

examination, when he was again grilled on this
aspect, he further explained that he was having no
information regarding Nasib Singh, till he was
arrested by PW-243, A.P.Singh and he has denied a
suggestion that when he handed over Jagtar Singh
Tara to A.P.Singh, on 18.9.1995, he asked
him (A . P . Singh) to take Jagtar Singh Tara and get
the recovery made from the house of Nasib Singh.
Thus, this fact further clarifies that what was
stated by PW-248 in his examination in chief was
keeping in view the entire evidence collected
during the investigations to complete the case
before the court and not as to the facts, which was

906

with him on 18.9.1995.

1425. As far as the authority relied upon
by learned defence counsel in support of this plea
entitled Raja Kheema Vs. State of Saurashtra, AIR,
1956, Supreme Court, page, 217, is concerned in
that case some recoveries of incriminating articles
were made not on the basis of disclosure statement
made by the accused, who concealed the same but on
the statement made by the accused before a third
person by way of a extra judicial confession. And
on these facts, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
once the police was already knowing the factum of
place, where the articles were hidden, there is no
question of showing its recovery at the instance of
accused. However, in the present case as stated
earlier, accused Jagtar Singh Tara has also
disclosed about the place from where the RDX was
brought by Jagtar Singh Hawara but he has nowhere
disclosed that he also knows the place, where the
remaining RDX is concealed. Thus, this authority is
clearly distinguishable from the facts of the
present case and is of no help to the accused.

1426. Similarly, the plea of learned
defence counsel that the disclosure statement made
by accused Nasib Singh is hit by the provisions of
Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, being a
confession is also without any basis because as
discussed earlier, if any statement made to the

907

Police leads to the discovery of some fact relating
to the case, it is admissible under the provision
of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

1427. As such, the grounds put forward by
learned defence counsel in this regard are without
any basis and have no affect on the dispute of
arrest of accused Nasib Singh and making of
disclosure statement by him.

1428. As such, let us consider whether
disclosure statement of accused Nasib Singh
Ex.PW81/l, is legally and voluntarily made and
leads to recovery of the RDX and thus, is not
barred under the provisions of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act.

1429. As stated earlier, in this regard,
the prosecution alleged that accused Nasib Singh
suffered the disclosure statement, Ex.PW81/l in the
presence of PW-81, Raghubir Singh then Sarpanch of
Village Jhingran Kalan and one Naib Singh, Ex-
Sarpanch of Village Jhingran Kalan, who both were
the two respectables and independent witnesses
from the same village.

1430. However, now let us see whether PW-
81, who is the only witness examined by the
prosecution to prove its case against Nasib Singh,
supported the case or not because as argued by

908

learned defence counsel, this witness when appeared
in the witness box denied the making of any
disclosure statement or recovery of RDX from the
house of accused Nasib Singh in his presence. And
why the other witness Naib Singh was not examined
and what is its effect on these proceedings.

1431. Accordingly, after scrutinizing the
testimony of PW-81, Raghubir Singh, along with the
facts and circumstance of the case, it comes out
that, as argued by learned Public Prosecutor, this
witness has been won over by the accused persons
and he tried to side with them but when he was
cross examined as to his part, he could not with
stand the cross examination of Public Prosecutor
and ultimately admitted the role played by him in
the investigations relating to accused Nasib Singh,
leading to recovery of RDX from his possession.

1432. In his examination-in-chief, this
witness alleged that on 18.9.1995, he was called by
a Police Officer to the house of Nasib Singh and
when he reached there, he found that the police
party was already present there with a bag
containing RDX and it was the Police, who disclosed
that it had been recovered from the house of
accused Nasib Singh. However, as per this witness,
the same was not recovered in his presence nor any
disclosure statement was made by accused Nasib
Singh in his presence.

909

1433. Obviously, when he alleged so, he was
allowed to be cross examined by the learned Public
Prosecutor being siding with the accused and during
his cross examination, the truth comes out and
leads to prove that he was very much present during
the making of the disclosure statement by accused
Nasib Singh and the recovery of RDX and there is
nothing on the file to disbelieve these
proceedings .

1434. Before discussing the cross
examination of PW-81, it will not be out of place
to mention over here that this witness is a retired
police officer and he being a police officer, was
knowing about all the rules and regulations as well
as the working of the police department and if it
is so on this ground alone, his stand that he
signed the disclosure statement, Ex.PW81/l and
recovery memo, Ex.PW81/2, on the asking of the
police, without there being any actual proceedings
in his presence, is liable to be rejected and it
further shows that he has been pressurised to say
so .

1435. At the same time, once he admits his
signatures on the disclosure statement, Ex.PW81/l
as well as on the recovery memo, Ex.PW81/2, it was
for him to explain, why and how he signed it
without knowing the actual proceedings. But he

910

failed to give any plausible explanation in this
regard. On the contrary, he has admitted certain
facts, which go to prove that he was very much
present during the proceedings and denied the same
only under the pressure of accused persons, for the
obvious reasons.

1436. First of all, while admitting the

signatures on both the above documents, he admits
that the RDX, Ex.P-99, was weighed and sealed in
his presence and in the presence of accused Naib
Singh and it was found to be 13.700 kg, when
weighed and it was put into the same bag, Ex.P98,
in which it was recovered and then it was sealed
with a seal impression, as mentioned on it. He
further admits that the bag was sealed at the spot
in his presence and a specimen seal impression was
also affixed on the memo of recovery, Ex.PW81/2, in
his presence and after use the seal was handed over
to him.

1437. He also admits that a paper slip

containing the full particulars of the case was
pasted on the mouth of the bag and over it and then
sealed in his presence and that paper slip was also
signed by him and he identified the same as,
Ex.PW81/3 and further admits that the same was also
signed by the other witness Naib Singh and the
Investigating Officer and then he also identified
the quantity of the RDX, Ex.P99, to be the same,

911

which was recovered from the possession of the
accused .

1438. Similarly, he also admits that the
memo, Ex.PW81/2 was prepared after completing the
weighment and sealing etc. He also admits that he
signed the disclosure statement and the recovery
memo, being Sarpanch of village, voluntarily
without any coercion or force but he tried to say
that he did so on the verbal representation of the
Police as to its correctness. However, this
explanation is neither tenable nor plausible. He,
being a retired police officer, was fully aware
that what is going on and why he has been called
there and if no proceedings were taken in his
presence, there was no guestion of signing these
documents by him, specially when he admits that
there was no coercion force etc on him, when he
signed those documents.

1439. If it is so, how this witness can say
that he was not present during the actual
proceedings. On the contrary, the only inference,
which can be drawn from the above discussed facts,
which remained unrebutted, is that he has deposed
otherwise just to toe with the lines of accused
persons for so many reasons.

1440. There are certain more admissions on
the part of this witness, which further proves his

912

presence, during all the proceedings. He has given
the full description of the house of accused Nasib
Singh and presence of police party. At one stage,
he admits that when he had gone to the house of
accused Nasib Singh and when the proceedings of
recovery were conducted, he had not seen any other
accused there. The question, which was put to this
witness by the prosecution, for the above answer,
was that accused Jagtar Singh Tara was also with
the police party during the search and seizure
proceedings but while answering the question, he
forgot that this question was put only to confuse
him and despite the fact that he was a Police
Officer, he could not resist and admit the
proceedings .

1441. As far as the denial of presence of

accused Jagtar Singh Tara, during these proceedings
is concerned, it is immaterial because his role was
only to identify and locate the house of accused
Nasib Singh. Then he (PW-81) also admits that
police party remained at the house of accused Nasib
Singh upto 6.45 p.m and he earlier admits that he
reached there at 5.30 p.m and if as per this
witness, the RDX etc. was already recovered and the
disclosure of accused Nasib Singh was already
recorded, for what purpose the police party
remained in the house of accused Nasib Singh, for
more than one hour thereafter, is another fact,
which has not been explained by this witness and

913

which further shows that the proceedings
were conducted in his presence.

of

seizure

1442. Although, he denied the making of
statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C, Mark-PBBBBB. But when the
contents of this statement was read over to him, he
alleged that he does not know how it was so
recorded. Then he again admitted one more fact that
after sealing the bag of RDX etc. seal was handed
over to him. He also admits that being a Police
Officer, he had investigated so many criminal
cases, in which he recorded the disclosure
statement of so many accused persons and made
recoveries and recorded their statements u/s 161
Cr.P.C and as such he is fully conversant with the
procedure of the Police and if it is so, the only
consideration, for denying the proceedings in this
court, on the part of this witness, is that he is
being forced to toe to the lines of accused
persons .

1443. One more fact, which shows that this
witness was very much present during the
proceedings, is that he admits that after signing
the disclosure statement, Ex.PW81/l and recovery
memo, Ex.PW81/2, fully knowing that those are not
based on actual proceedings, he never made any
complaint to any higher authorities for
manipulating the proceedings and for falsely
implicating accused Nasib Singh, despite the fact

914

that he was the Sarpanch of the village, which
further shows that he denied the entire case may be
because of the fact that accused Nasib Singh is his
co-villager .

1444. Not even this, when he was cross
examined by learned defence counsels, he tried to
wriggle out from the facts, which he had already
admitted in the cross examination by the
prosecution, by saying that he do not know Hindi
but again this endeavour of this witness is also to
please his co-villager. Thus, the above discussed
facts clearly shows that the statement of PW-81 can
not be equated with a statement of a witness, who
was completely hostile. On the contrary, he has
admitted the material facts, which goes to prove
the factum of making of disclosure statement by
accused Nasib Singh and the recovery of RDX from
his house, in the presence of PW-81, Ragubir Singh.

1445. Incidentally, by now it is settled
proposition of law that in the event of a portion
of evidence not being consistent with the
statements given u/s 161 Cr.P.C and the witness
stands declared hostile, that does not, however,
mean and imply total rejection of evidence. The
portion, which stands in favour of the prosecution
can be accepted subject to a close scrutiny of the
over all statement. In this regard, we can refer to
the observation made by the Apex Court in State of

915

U.P. Vs. Ramesh Par sad, AIR, 1996, Supreme Court,
2766, as well as Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of
Haryana, AIR, 2002, Supreme Court, page 3217.

144 6. Similarly in Bhagwan Singh Vs. State

of Haryana, AIR, 1976, Supreme Court, page 202, the

Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the above settled
principle of law and held that mere fact that a
witness is declared hostile by the party calling
him and allowed to be cross examined does not make
him a unreliable witness so as to exclude his
evidence from the consideration altogether. The
evidence, which comes in favour of prosecution is
admissible in trial and there is no legal bar to
base a conviction upon such a testimony if
corroborated by other reliable evidence.

1447. Last but not the least, the factum of

recovery of RDX, from the house of accused Nasib
Singh, is otherwise established on record, in view
of the testimony of PW-243, A.P.Singh,
Investigating Officer, who supported the case of
prosecution from the stage of arrest of accused
Nasib Singh, making of disclosure statement
Ex.PW81/l, recovery of the 13.700 kg of RDX,
Ex.P99, in the bag Ex.P98, sealing of the same as
per the procedure of law and taking of the same
into possession in the presence of two witnesses
as per memo of recovery, Ex.PW81/2.

916

1448. The plea of learned defence counsel
that the other witness of these proceeding, Naib
Singh is not examined, is also baseless because PW-
81 himself admitted that Naib Singh had died during
the pendency of trial and if it is so, the
prosecution was at loss for non-examination of this
said witness, who may have supported the case in
toto .

1449. At the same time guestion arises
whether joining of independent witness is a
mandatory provision in such like cases and whether
the recovery conducted by investigating officer,
without joining any independent witness or if
joined but failed to support the case, is doubtful
and what is the affect of provisions of section
100(4) and (5) of Code of Criminal Procedure on
such proceedings .

1450. This guestion was directly considered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in State, Govt of NCT of
Delhi Vs. Sunil, 2001, Supreme Court Cases
(Criminal) 248, and the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that : -

"There is no requirement either under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act or under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, to obtain signature of
independent witnesses on the record in
which statement of an accused is written.
The legal obligation to call independent

917

and respectable inhabitants of the
locality to attend and witness the
exercise made by the Police is cast on the
police officer when searches are made
under Chapter VII of the Code. Section
100(5) of the Code requires that such
search shall be made in their presence and
a list of all things seized in the course
of such search and of the places in which
they are respectively found, shall be
prepared by such officer or other person
"and signed by such witnesses". It must be
remembered that a search is made to find
out a thing or document about which the
searching officer has no prior idea as to
where the thing or document is kept. He
prowls for it either on reasonable
suspicion or on some guesswork that it
could possibly be ferreted out in such
prowling. It is a stark reality that
during searches the team which conducts
the search would have to meddle with lots
of other articles and documents also and
in such process many such articles or
documents are likely to be displaced or
even strewn helter-skelter. The

legislative idea in insisting on such
searches to be made in the presence of two
independent inhabitants of the locality is
to ensure the safety of all such articles
meddled with and to protect the rights of
the persons entitled thereto. But recovery
of an object pursuant to the information
supplied by an accused in custody is
different from the searching endeavour
envisaged in Chapter VII of the Code."

1451. Before that, the Hon'ble Apex Court,

while indicating the difference between the two
processes i.e the search and seizures, in Transport
Commissioner A.P Vs. S.Sardar Ali, AIR, 1983

918

SC,1225, laid down the following proposition : -

"Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure
Code to which reference was made by the
counsel deals with searches and not
seizures. In the very nature of things
when property is seized and not recovered
during a search, it is not possible to
comply with the provisions of sub-sections
(4) and (5) of Section 100 of the Criminal
Procedure Code."

1452. Relying upon the above propositions, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in State Vs. Sunil ' s case
(Supra), concluded that : -

"Hence it is a fallacious impression that
when recovery is effected pursuant to any
statement made by the accused the document
prepared by the Investigating Officer
contemporaneous with such recovery must
necessarily be attested by the independent
witnesses. Of course, if any such
statement leads to recovery of any article
it is open to the investigating officer to
take the signature of any person present
at that time, on the document prepared for
such recovery. But if no witness was
present or if no person had agreed to
affix his signature on the document5,it is
difficult to lay down, as a proposition of
law, that the document so prepared by the
police officer must be treated as tainted
and the recovery evidence unreliable. The
court has to consider the evidence of the
investigating officer who deposed to the
fact of recovery based on the statement
elicited from the accused on its own
worth . "

919

was further held that : -

"We feel that it is an archaic notion that
actions of the police officer should be
approached with initial distrust. We are
aware that such a notion was lavishly
entertained during the British period and
policemen also knew about it. Its hangover
persisted during post-independent years
but it is time now to start placing at
least initial trust on the actions and the
documents made by the police. At any rate,
the court cannot start with the
presumption that the police records are
untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the
presumption should be the other way
around. That official acts of the police
have been regularly performed is a wise
principle of presumption and recognized
even by the legislature. Hence when a
police officer gives evidence in court
that a certain article was recovered by
him on the strength of the statement made
by the accused it is open to the court to
believe the version to be correct if it is
not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It
is for the accused, through cross-
examination of witnesses or through any
other materials, to show that the evidence
of the police officer is either unreliable
or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a
particular case. If the court has any good
reason to suspect the truthfulness of such
records of the police the court could
certainly take into account the fact that
no other independent person was present at
the time of recovery. But it is not a
legally approvable procedure to presume
the police action as unreliable to start
with, nor to jettison such action merely
for the reason that police did not collect
signatures of independent persons in the
documents made contemporaneous with such
actions . "

920

1453. Another related question with this
aspect, is whether the evidence relating to the
recovery is acceptable, when non-official witnesses
did not support the recovery and made departure
from the statement made during the investigations.
This question was consider by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Modan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1978
(4) SCC 435 and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that : -

"Where the evidence of the Investigating
Officer who recovered the material objects
is convincing, the evidence as to recovery
need not be rejected on the ground that
seizure witnesses did not support th8e
prosecution version.

1454. Similarly in Mohd Aslam Vs. State of
Maharashtra 2001 (9) SCC, page 362, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that : -

"If panch witnesses turn hostile, which
happens very often in criminal cases, the
evidence of the person who effected the
recovery would not stand vitiated."

14 55. Lastly in Antar Singh Vs. State of

Rajasthan AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2865, the Hon'ble
Apex Court again reiterated the above mentioned
proposition of law.

1456. In view of the above discussed legal

921

position, it comes out that even if we ignore the
testimony of PW-81, the factum of recovery of RDX
from the house of accused Nasib Singh, in
consequences to his disclosure statement, is duly
proved, specially when recovery involved is 13.700
kg of RDX, which is a high explosive and not
available easily and thus can be planted on the
accused. Above all there is no explanation on the
file as to why the prosecution has arrested him and
involved him in this case falsely. No motive or
animosity on the party of the CBI for this has been
shown. Then, the efforts of PW-81, Raghubir Singh
to create doubts regarding the recovery proceedings
of RDX, also proved in vain and goes to show that
the recovery proceedings were true and lastly the
fact confessed by accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar
Singh Tara corroborate and fortify the same.

1457. One more plea put forward by

learned defence counsel is that no site plan of the
place of recovery i.e the house of accused Nasib
Singh, has been prepared by, PW-243 and there is no
explanation in this regard. On the contrary, this
fact coupled with the cross examination of PW-243,
shows that he never visited the house of accused
nor recovered any RDX and all the proceedings are
manipulated .

1458. However, after considering the case

of the prosecution in this regard, it comes out

922

that admittedly, the Investigating Officer of these
proceedings, PW-243, A.P.Singh, has not prepared
the site plan of the place of recovery of RDX, from
the house of accused Nasib Singh but as stated
earlier, it perse has no affect on the factum of
recovery of RDX.

1459. At the same time, it is already held
that even before denying the factum of recovery
from the house of Nasib Singh, PW-81, Raghubir
Singh admitted that a CBI party headed by PW-243
raided the house of accused Nasib Singh and
remained there for about one and half hour and
completed all the proceedings of recovery at the
spot. If it is so, no further evidence is reguired
to believe the presence of PW-243 and the recovery
proceedings, specially, when the defence alleged
that PW-81, is their witness, as he has not
supported the factum of recovery in his
examination-in-chief, whereas it was not so, as the
testimony of PW-81, clearly proves the factum of
recovery of RDX, from the house of Nasib Singh. As
such, this plea also proved in vain to raise any
doubts about the recovery proceedings.

1460. Similarly, one more plea of learned
defence counsel was that the daughter of Nasib
Singh namely Harpreet Kaur, who was admittedly
present during these proceedings has not been cited
as a witness, despite the fact that her statement

923

u/s 161 Cr.P.C, was recorded by the Investigating
Officer. However, again there is no force in this
plea also because admittedly, Harpreet Kaur
daughter of accused Nasib Singh, was present in the
house, when the search and seizure proceedings were
done and her statement in this regard was also
recorded but she was not an attesting witness of
the recovery proceedings nor she can be, as it can
not be believed that she will support the factum of
recovery of RDX from her house and from the custody
of her father during the trial and under these
circumstances, she was dropped from the list of
witnesses being won over. Even otherwise, the
factum of recovery of RDX is already proved with
cogent evidence and no further evidence is reguired
in this regard.

1461. As far as the authority relied upon

by learned defence counsel entitled Balak Ram Vs.
State of U.P, AIR, 1974, Supreme Court, page 2165,

is concerned, in that case a conviction recorded by
the lower court, on the basis of dying declaration
recorded by the Investigating Officer, was held to
be not a reliable and substantive evidence and on
those facts, it was held that the sole statement of
Investigating Officer is not sufficient to convict
the accused. However, in the present case, the
factum of recovery of RDX from the house of the
accused Nasib Singh is clearly proved from the
testimony of PW-243, Investigating Officer of the

924

case as well as from the testimony of PW-81,
coupled with the other facts and circumstances in
the form of confessions of some of the accused
persons. Thus, this authority is of no help to the
defence specially in view of the legal position
discussed above.

1462. In view of the above discussed, legal

and factual position, it is held that the
prosecution has successfully proved that as per the
disclosure statement made by accused Nasib Singh,
Ex.PW81/l, 13.700 kg of a substance looking as RDX,
Ex.P99, was recovered from the house of accused
Nasib Singh as per the reguirement of the law. As
such, let us examine whether the prosecution has
been able to prove that the substance recovered
from the possession of accused Nasib Singh and
stated to be RDX, was properly sealed, kept and
reached the CFSL intact and thus, was rightly found
to be RDX by PW-165, as it so disputed by learned
defence counsels.

1463. Now, let us consider the authenticity

of the recovery proceedings and the custody of the
RDX till its examination by PW-165, coupled with
the dispute of seals affixed on the parcel prepared
at the spot. In this regard, from the testimony of
PW-243, it is proved that as per his disclosure
statement, accused Nasib Singh himself pulled out
one bag from cattle fodder of his cattle shed and

925

when the same was opened, it was found containing
explosive substance.

1464. The same was accordingly weighed and
found to be 13.700 kg and same was put into same
bag and was sealed with the seal impression, sample
of which has been also affixed on the memo of
recovery, Ex.PW81/2 and the seal after use was
handed over to PW-81, Raghubir Singh, as admitted
by him, after completing the proceedings. As
mentioned earlier, PW-81 has admitted that the
explosive substance was weighed and found to be
13.700 kg and then it was sealed with the seal
mentioned on the recovery memo, Ex.PW-81/2 and was
taken into possession, as per that memo. Thus, the
factum of proper sealing of the RDX after its
recovery and weighment, is duly established on
record .

1465. It is further stated by PW-243 that
after completing the proceedings of recovery etc.
including the recording of statement of both the
private witnesses including the statement of PW-81,
Ex.PW243/l, without any addition or omission, he
returned back to Chandigarh and handed over all the
proceedings including the parcel of the RDX, which
was exhibited in the court as Ex.P98 including the
RDX, Ex.P99 to Shri S.N.Saxena, Chief Investigating
Officer and also handed over accused to him.

926

1466. In view of the above stand of PW-243,
which remained conclusive, it is proved that after
completing the recovery proceedings on 18.9.1995,
he returned back to Chandigarh and handed over the
parcel of the RDX to PW-248. Accordingly, PW-248,
Sh . S . N . Saxena, when stepped into the witness box
reiterated this fact and admitted that on 18.9.1995
itself, the parcel of RDX along with the accused
and proceedings was handed over to him by PW-243
and he deposited the parcel of the RDX in the
malkhana of CBI, Chandigarh.

1467. He further deposed that on 20.9.1995,
he left Chandigarh for Delhi along with accused
Jagtar Singh Tara and all the incriminating
articles, which were seized on 2.9.1995 and
3.9.1995 along with the parcel of the RDX and on
reaching there, he forwarded the same to CFSL on
21.9.1995 for examination and reports. He and PW-
243 categorically deposed that till the time the
case property remained with them, it remained
intact and neither they interfered with the same
nor they allowed anybody to do so.

1468. Similarly, PW-165, Roop Singh, a
Ballistics Expert and who has examined the parcel
of RDX, also deposed that on 21.9.1995 he received
the parcel, Ex.P98, sealed with 14 seals
containing, 13.700 kg of black coloured pasty
material looking like RDX along with a specimen

927

seal impression. Accordingly, he compared the seal
on the parcel with the specimen seal impression and
found the same to be similar and then opened the
parcel and took out a sample of 10 gms out of the
same and then tested it in the laboratory and after
chemical and instrumental analysis, he found the
said substance to be RDX as the test confirms the
presence of RDX based high explosive in the
contents of the substance, as per his report,
Ex. PW165/2 .

1469. From the above discussed evidence, it
is proved that from 18.9.1995 till 21.9.1995, when
the RDX reaches CFSL, the parcel of the same
remained intact. No doubt, as submitted by learned
defence counsel the prosecution has not examined
any witness of malkhana of the CBI, Chandigarh to
prove about the depositing of this parcel in that
malkhana on 18.9.1995 and its custody till
20.9.1995, but this has no bearing on the
intactness of the case property.

1470. At the same time, the defence has
examined DW-9, Parlad Singh, SI Incharge of
Malkhana of the CBI at Chandigarh, who deposed that
as per the practice, if the case property of any
other branch of the CBI, is temporarily kept in the
malkhana, it is kept without making any entry in
the malkhana register, if it is not related with
their branch and he further admitted that the some

928

case property relating to the present case was also
deposited in the malkhana.

1471. If it is so, this fact further proves
that as stated by PW-248 after receiving the parcel
of the RDX, Ex.P98, he kept the same in the CBI
malkhana at Chandigarh temporarily, for two days
and then took it to Delhi and on 21.9.1995, the
same was deposited in the CFSL. At the same time,
PW-165 has further stated that when he received the
parcel, he compared the seals on the parcel with
specimen seal impressions, which he received
separately and found that they tallied with each
other. If it is so, now let us consider the dispute
of seal impression.

1472. Again after considering the evidence
and surrounding facts and circumstance under which
recovery was made and the pace of investigations
coupled with stakes involved on this aspect, it
comes out that the learned defence counsel has
picked up a typographical mistake made during the
recording of statement of PW-165 and tried to
dispute the intactness of the parcel in which the
RDX recovered from the house of Nasib Singh was
sealed, saying that seal disclosed by PW-165 is
different from the impression affixed on the parcel
of RDX, Ex.P98 and as mentioned on the recovery
memo, Ex.PW81/2.

929

1473. However, even this fact proved in
vain because no doubt, PW-165 deposed that on
21.9.1995 after receiving the gunny bag sealed with
the seal of CBI SIC-II, he also received a specimen
seal impression and compared the seals affixed on
parcel Ex.P98 with the same and found both the
impressions similar but while typing the impression
of seal, it was typed as CBI SIC-II and this may
be only because of typographical mistake, because
in the report, Ex.PW165/2, it is categorically
mentioned that the parcel containing gunny bag of
RDX was sealed with the 14 seals of an impression
of Capital alphabets of NK or KN, inscribed on a
seal and the said seal impressions on the parcel,
Ex.P98, were intact and tallied with the specimen
seal received separately which was similar to the
impression affixed on the recovery memo, Ex.PW81/2.

1474. Another reason for this confusion is
that, it is also proved that after taking a sample
of 10 gms . from the parcel of the RDX, Ex.PW-98,
PW-165 re-sealed the parcel of RDX with his seals
of CFSL and the same was returned back to the CBI
and it was brought back by PW-241, Surinder Pal
Singh, as states by him and later on when it was
produced in the court during the trial, obviously
it was having the seals of CFSL, which may also
lead to confusion to PW-165 to say that it was
bearing the seals of CFSL.

930

1475. In view of the above discussed facts,
it is proved that the parcel was actually sealed
with the same seal, impression of which is
mentioned on the recovery memo, Ex.PW81/2 and this
fact is further proved on the file from the
specimen seal impression affixed on the recovery
memo Ex.PW81/2, which also contains the same seal
impressions, which was found by PW-165, before
opening the same for analysis.

1476. At the same time, PW-165 was not
cross examined by the learned defence counsel to
further clarify this aspect and it further shows
that the impression of the seal used and mentioned
in the testimony of PW-165 was wrongly typed as CBI
SIC-II, which otherwise cannot be a seal impression
and which was only the branch Code of the CBI,
Delhi. Thus, no benefit of this mistake cannot be
given to the prosecution.

1477. Not even this, the defence itself
examined, DW-19, Hira Singh, Inspector, Incharge of
the malkhana of the CBI / SCR- I I -New Delhi, Branch at
the relevant time and who has brought the malkhana
register and deposed that on 21.9.1995 as per
entry no. 927 of 1995 one sealed packet containing
13.700 kg of RDX was deposited in the malkhana, as
per the receipt, copy of which is Ex.PX/1, which is
the copy of recovery memo, Ex.PW81/2 and at that
time, it was sealed with the seal impression of the

931

CFSL. This testimony of DW-19 was further clarified
by learned defence counsel by cross examining him,
when he clarified that although he received the
sample on 21.9.1995 but the entry of the same was
made at serial no. 927/95 on 22.9.1995.

1478. Whatever may be the facts and
circumstances, this evidence clearly clinches that
on 21.9.1995 the parcel of the RDX was sent to
CFSL, where a sample of 10 gm was separated by PW-
165 and thereafter the remaining parcel was sealed
with the seals of CFSL as mentioned above and was
returned back to the CBI and was deposited in the
CBI malkhana at Delhi. Thus, this evidence proves
that the parcel containing the RDX recovered from
the possession of accused Nasib Singh, Ex.P98
remained intact with the same seals, with which it
was sealed on 18.9.1995 till 21.9.1995, when it was
opened by PW-165 and when a sample of 10 gms was
separated. Thus, the entire controversy raised by
the learned defence counsel in this regard is
without any basis and was only to confuse the
matter .

1479. At the same time, this parcel was
produced in the court for the first time during the
testimony of PW-81, Raghubir Singh and at that
time, it was found sealed with the seals of CFSL as
mentioned above and as was deposited with DW-19.
This fact further proves about the intactness of

932

the RDX till its examination and if it is so, no
link evidence is missing in this regard as is
alleged by learned defence counsel, as explained
above. If it is so, the authority relied upon by
learned defence counsel on this aspect are of no
help .

1480. Not even this, in State of Rajasthan
Vs. Daulat Ram, AIR 1960, Supreme Court, page 1314,

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where the sample
of opium changed several hands before reaching the
analyst and yet none of those in whose custody it
remains, were examined to prove that while in their
custody the seals on the sample were not tempered
with, it shows that material link is missing and
benefit of the same be given to the accused.
Similar principle was reiterated in Om Parkash Vs.
State of Haryana, 1999(1), RCR, Criminal, 771 and
Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1995(3), RCR,
page 365 and Balwant Singh Vs. state of Punjab,
1997(4), RCR, Criminal, page 824, by the Hon'ble
Punjab & Haryana High Court.

1481. However, all the above cases were
under the provisions of NDPS Act, wherein the
report of the Experts as to the nature of
contraband, is the material aspect and as such, if
any doubt has been found qua the custody and
intactness of the same, it is considered as very
serious. However, the facts of the present case are

933

clearly distinguishable as it is already discussed
and held that all the witnesses in whose custody
the parcel of the RDX remained from 18.9.1995 till
21.9.1995 as appeared in the witness box and
deposed as to the intactness of the seals and the
contents of the parcel .

1482. Similarly in Smt. Meena Gopalkrishnan
Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1993. Crl.L.J. 3634, it

was settled that where the Chemical examiner has
deposed that he has compared the seals with the
specimen seal impressions and found the same
intact, no benefit of non-examining of police
constable, who took the sample to the Chemical
analyser can be given as the possibility of
tempering with the samples during the transit,
stands excluded altogether in view of the statement
of the Chemical examiner.

1483. In view of the above discussion,
there is nothing on the file to doubt about the
authenticity of the case of the prosecution as far
as the factum of recovery of 13.700 kg of RDX,
Ex.P99, from the accused Nasib Singh, its custody
and intactness till it reaches the CFSL, is
concerned .

1484. Now the guestion comes whether the
recovery of RDX from the house of accused Nasib
Singh is sufficient to say that he kept the same in

934

his house in furtherance of his conspiracy with the
remaining accused persons and thus is sufficient to
link him with the conspiracy, specially when it is
admitted case of the prosecution that apart from
this circumstance, there is no other evidence on
the file to link accused Nasib Singh with the
conspiracy of crime.

1485. As per the legal position discussed

above on the point as to what evidence is required
to prove a conspiracy and specially as concluded by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Vs. Nalini ' s
case (supra) known as Rajiv Gandhi murder trial,
that it was the duty of the prosecution to prove by
positive evidence that there was a positive
agreement in the minds of two or more persons and
there was a meeting of minds to do an unlawful act
or a lawful act with unlawful means, because the
most important ingredient of the offence of
conspiracy is the agreement between two or more
persons and not merely an intention to do such
acts. And if such a design rests in intention only,
it cannot be a circumstance to infer conspiracy.

1486. Accordingly in the present case it

was the duty of the prosecution to prove that
accused Nasib Singh entered into this conspiracy by
way of positive agreement in his mind to help, aid
or abet his co-accused persons in killing S.Beant
Singh .

935

1487. However, applying the above discussed
proposition of law to the facts in hand, it comes
out that the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove this fact on record and it comes out that
accused Nasib Singh, though guilty of keeping RDX
in his house, but there is no link of chain either
through circumstances or through any other
evidence, to say that he did so being part and
parcel of this conspiracy or knowing that the RDX
kept in his house is going to be used for
commission of any crime and specially the killing
of S.Beant Singh.

1488. As mentioned earlier, it i undisputed
case of the prosecution that the recovery of the
RDX from the house of accused Nasib Singh, is the
only material circumstance to link him with the
conspiracy and apart from this, there is no other
evidence in this regard. However, it is already
held that the recovery of RDX is not a ground to
say so. At the same time, when accused Nasib Singh
was interrogated and he suffered a disclosure
statement Ex.PW81/l, which is supported by recovery
of RDX, he has nowhere disclosed that he was part
and parcel of this conspiracy and was knowing that
the the RDX, which accused Jagtar Singh Hawara has
kept in his house, will be used for commission of
this crime.

936

1489. In addition to this, even in the most

material evidence of the prosecution i.e the
confessions made by the accused Jagtar Singh Tara
and Balwant Singh, who both accompanied accused
Jagtar Singh Hawara to the house of Nasib Singh,
has no where stated anything in this regard. Even
in the extra judicial confession suffered by
accused Balwant Singh and Jagtar Singh Tara, there
is no mention of the name of this accused or as to
any role played by him in this conspiracy including
the factum of keeping the RDX.

1490. Apart from this, none of the 248

witnesses of the prosecution including all the
Investigating Officers and specially PW-243, who
recovered the RDX and PW-248, S.N.Saxena, Chief
Investigating Officer, who has challaned accused
Nasib Singh, could clarify or depose any
circumstance, what to talk of an incriminating
circumstance, to show that this accused was knowing
the conspiracy from its beginning or at any later
stage and joined the same with an intention and
motive similar to the remaining accused persons and
the factum of keeping of RDX was also a step in the
execution of the conspiracy.

1491. In view of the above discussed legal

and factual position, it is held that the
prosecution has miserably failed to link accused
Nasib Singh with this conspiracy, although it is

937

proved that 13.700 kgs . RDX was recovered from this
house which he kept unlawfully but it is
insufficient to link him with this conspiracy,
specially when there is no other evidence on the
file in this regard. Thus, as far as accused Nasib
Singh is concerned, although he can be held guilty
for commission of offence punishable under section
5 of the Explosives Substance Act, 1908 but he
deserves acquittal from the charges of conspiracy
to kill S.Beant Singh, under the theory of benefit
of doubt.

CASE AGAINST ACCUSED NAVJOT SINGH.

1492. As far as accused Navjot Singh is

concerned, it is alleged by the prosecution that
accused Jagtar Singh Tara in his disclosure
statement stated that after bringing the RDX and
all other inputs of the bomb as well as arms and
ammunitions and before the final action, they
decided to conceal the extra RDX and other arms &
ammunitions and for that purpose they kept the
entire stock in a bag and decided to conceal this
in the house of accused Navjot Singh and Jagrup
Singh, who were residing in Mohali, as they were
already associated in this conspiracy through
Paramjit Singh, when they met in the house of
absconding accused Jagroop Singh at Mohali.
Accordingly accused Navjot Singh, took the said
arms and ammunitions to his house and kept and

938

concealed the same in his bed room.

1493. It is further alleged by the
prosecution that thereafter accused Navjot Singh
was arrested by PW-244, R.S.Dhankar, one of the
Investigating Officers of this case, on 17.9.1995,
and the house of accused Navjot Singh was searched
to recover the arms and ammunitions. However, no
arms and ammunition or any other incriminating
article relating to this assassination or
conspiracy were recovered from his house. On the
contrary, some documents and papers, along with
some literature and a diary Ex.PW244/3, containing
the writing, Ex.PW91/23 to Ex.PW91/30, were
recovered and those were found containing the
writings, which show that he was part and parcel of
this conspiracy and later on the said writings of
accused Navjot Singh was compared with his specimen
hand writing and was found to be in his hands by
PW-91 and PW-92, co-employees of Navjot Singh.

1494. And the document experts also found
the same to be in the hands of Navjot Singh, which
clearly shows that he was part and parcel of this
conspiracy and lastly it is alleged by the
prosecution that PW-109, Inderjit Singh, PW-184,
Amarjit Kaur, PW-117 Gian Singh husband of PW-184
and PW-192, Jagjit Singh alleged that accused
Navjot Singh was the member of Anand Kirtani Jatha
and he along with accused Paramjit Singh and

939

Jagroop Singh once disclosed that they are going to
kill Beant Singh.

1495. On the contrary, the defence of

accused Navjot Singh is that he has been falsely
implicated in this case, as his parents were having
some enmity with his neighbours, who managed to
falsely implicate him in this case. Accordingly,
learned counsel for accused Navjot Singh submitted
that the prosecution has failed to bring even an
iota of evidence on the file to link this accused
with this case. The entire evidence of the
prosecution to show the association of this accused
with Paramjit Singh and Jagroop Singh and then
meeting accused Jagtar Singh Hawara, to become a
member of the conspiracy remained unsubstantiated
in the file.

1496. Similarly, the story of prosecution

that the documents recovered from the house of
accused was containing some writings and
literatures, showing that accused Navjot Singh was
having a plan to kill Beant Singh for the
atrocities committed by him on the people of
Punjab, also remained unproved on the file, firstly
on the ground that the recovery of these documents
itself is doubtful and secondly neither the
testimony of prosecution witnesses nor the expert
evidence could establish that these hand writings
were in the hands of Navjot Singh and lastly if at

940

all those were
same is not
conspiracy, as

in the hands of Navjot Singh,
sufficient to link him with
per the requirements of the law.

the
the

1497. Learned defence counsel in order to

challenge the trial of Navjot Singh further
submitted that the entire proceedings of search and
seizure are highly doubtful for violation of
various provisions of law and for non-joining of
independent witnesses and thus leads nowhere to
link this accused with the case and the only
inference which can be drawn is that he has been
falsely implicated.

1498. After due consideration of rival

contentions of both the parties, it comes out that
it is admitted case of the prosecution that the
name of this accused surfaced only during the
interrogation of accused Jagtar Singh Tara, who
alleged that this accused was also associated in
the conspiracy through accused Paramjit Singh and
the extra arms and ammunitions were kept and
concealed by him in his house.

1499. In this regard, it is admitted case

of PW-244, R.S.Dhankar, Investigating Officer, who
has arrested this case and who linked him with this
conspiracy that when he arrested accused Navjot
Singh, apart from the disclosures made by accused
Jagtar Singh Tara during his interrogations, there

941

was no legal evidence with him against accused
Navjot Singh.

1500. Not even this, it is also admitted
case of prosecution that confession of accused
Jagtar Singh Tara imputing accused Navjot Singh was
recorded only 22.9.1995 but before that accused
Navjot Singh was already arrested on 17.9.1995 and
the search of his house was also made but neither
any arms or ammunitions nor any article relating to
this assassination was recovered.

1501. Not even this, even in the disclosure
statement made by accused Jagtar Singh Tara on
18.9.1995, he has not named accused Navjot Singh,
as per the story allegedly disclosed by him to the
Investigating Officer on 13.9.1995. Not even this,
when PW-244 was confronted on this aspect, he even
admitted that when he went to the house of Navjot
Singh to arrest him, the name of this accused was
not even disclosed by any witness even in statement
u/s 161 Cr.P.C. In this regard, one more fact is
that even the statement of PW-109, PW-117, PW-184
and PW-192 linking the accused with this conspiracy
were recorded after the arrest of this accused.

1502. All these facts & circumstances show
that there was not even an iota of evidence on the
file with the CBI, when it arrested accused Navjot
Singh through PW-244. If it so a heavy onus lies

942

upon the prosecution to prove how it found that

this accused was already associated in this

conspiracy and how it justified his role and link
with this conspiracy.

1503. Let us take the case of the
prosecution point wise as alleged against this
accused and to scan it with the legal position to
know whether the story put forward by the
prosecution qua this accused is proved and
sufficient to link this accused with the
conspiracy .

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 1

Association of accused Navjot Singh in
conspiracy .

1504. It is alleged by the prosecution that
some time in the month of July, 1995, accused
Paramjit Singh, who is being tried separately along
with accused Navjot Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara met
Jagroop Singh at his house in Mohali, as accused
Paramjit, Navjot Singh and Jagroop Singh, were the
members of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha and accused
Paramjit disclosed that Beant Singh, then CM Punjab
and KPS Gill, DGP, Punjab were to be killed as they
are responsible for killing of several Jathedars in
false encounters and accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
assured the availability of arms & ammunitions and
accused Paramjit Singh, Jagroop Singh and Navjot

943

Singh joined the conspiracy and agreed to help them
to achieve the goal.

1505. As per the legal position discussed
above as to the point of evidence required to prove
a conspiracy and specially as concluded by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Vs. Nalini ' s case
(supra) known as Rajiv Gandhi murder trial, that it
was the duty of the prosecution to prove by
positive evidence that there was a positive
agreement in the minds of two or more persons and
there was a meeting of minds to do an unlawful act
or a lawful act with unlawful means, because the
most important ingredient of the offence of
conspiracy is the agreement between two or more
persons and not merely an intention to do such
acts. And if such a design rests in intention only,
it cannot be a circumstance to infer conspiracy.

1506. However, after going through the
evidence brought on the file by the prosecution, it
comes out that there is not even an iota of
evidence on the file to prove the association of
accused Navjot Singh with any of the accused
persons of this case in any manner and his link
with conspiracy as per the requirements of the law
mentioned above.

1507. In this regard, it is alleged by
the prosecution that after the arrest of accused

944

Navjot Singh, when the facts were further verified,
Pws 109, 117, 184 and 192 also disclosed that they
had seen accused Navjot Singh while discussing this
conspiracy with his co-accused Paramjit Singh and
Jagroop Singh. However, all these witnesses have
not supported the case of the prosecution, despite
the fact that their testimony after the arrest of
the accused was otherwise inadmissible gua Navjot
Singh .

1508. The most material witness of the

prosecution on this aspect is PW-109 Inderjit
Singh, who was known to accused Paramjit Singh and
before whom accused Paramjit Singh, Navjot Singh
and Jagroop Singh disclosed in the month of July,
1995 that they are going to kill Beant Singh.
However, during the trial this witness has not
deposed anything as per the above facts. On the
contrary, he disclosed that he was knowing one
Paramjit Singh, who took him to Delhi to provide
him employment. Although, he admitted that he also
knows the house of sister of Paramjit Singh at
Mohali but he denied that he met accused Navjot
Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara and Paramjit Singh in
the house of Jagroop Singh, where they disclosed
about the killing of Beant Singh. No doubt, this
witness was declared hostile to the prosecution and
was allowed to cross examine by the learned Public
Prosecutor but despite detailed cross examination
of this witness, he denied making of statement to

945

CBI on 30.9.1995, Ex.PW109/2 as to the association
of accused Navjot Singh and Paramjit Singh in this
conspiracy .

1509. Not even this, it further comes
out that when the contents of statement, Ex.PW109/2
were read over to this witness, he denied making of
any such statement. Although, he admitted that he
was knowing Jagroop Singh resident of Mohali but he
denied his association with accused Navjot Singh.
On the contrary, he alleged that he was illegally
detained by the Punjab Police and he was allowed to
go only when he promised to become a witness in
this case. Needless to say as discussed earlier,
even a hostile testimony of witness can be relied
upon to the extent it support the case of the
prosecution but in this case, the statement of PW-
109 leads nowhere and as such can not be relied for
any purpose whatsoever.

1510. Another witness relied upon by the
prosecution on this aspect was PW-184, Amarjit
Kaur, landlord of absconding accused Jagroop Singh
and the case of the prosecution is that accused
Navjot Singh used to visit the house of Jagroop
Singh and she used to help him as her brother was
ASI in the Punjab Police and Jagroop Singh
disclosed her about the assassination of Beant
Singh and their involvement.

946

1511. However, this witness when stepped
into the witness box failed to prove this aspect.
She stated that although, she knows Jagroop Singh,
who was residing in her house as tenant but she
failed to identify accused Navjot Singh in the
court or to say that he used to visit Jagroop Singh
on a Moped and he also used to talk to her for help
to settle the dispute of his father with their
neighbourer through her brother, who was ASI in the
Punjab Police. No doubt, as stated earlier, this
witness was also declared hostile and was allowed
to be cross examined by learned Public Prosecutor
but despite incisive cross examination by learned
Public Prosecutor, nothing material comes out to
show any link of Navjot Singh with this conspiracy

1512. To the same effect is the testimony
of PW-117, Gian Singh, husband of PW-184 and he
also stated that absconding accused Jagroop Singh
was tenant in his house up to September, 1995 but
he never saw PW-109, Inderjit Singh along with
accused Navjot Singh, who was friend of Jagroop
Singh, in his house nor he ever talk to Navjot
Singh in connection with helping his father for
some dispute with his neighbours. No doubt, this
witness was also declared hostile and was allowed
to be cross examined by the learned Public
Prosecutor but despite incisive cross examination
by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing material
comes out to show any link of Navjot Singh with

947

this conspiracy. Thus, this witness also
prove the association of accused Navjot
the remaining accused persons.

failed to
Singh with

1513. Similarly, it is also alleged that
PW-192 Jagdish Singh, who is the brother-in-law of
accused Paramjit Singh, who is being tried
separately, also saw Navjot Singh with Paramjit
Singh and Jagroop Singh together and discussing the
conspiracy. However, this witness has also not
supported this story when he stepped into the
witness box. On the contrary, he stated that
accused Paramjit Singh is his brother-in-law and he
used to work in some factory at Delhi.

1514. He further stated that although he
resided at Mohali in a rented accommodation till
December or January, 1996 and Paramjit Singh used
to visit and stay with him but accused Navjot Singh
never came to meet Paramjit Singh, when he was
staying in that house. If it is so, the testimony
of this witness also proved in vain to prove the
association of accused Navjot Singh with the
remaining accused persons and about joining of this
conspiracy. Even, this witness was also cross
examined by the learned Public Prosecutor after
being declared as hostile but still his stand
remains as it is and he denied the association of
accused Navjot Singh with his brother in law,
accused Paramjit Singh in any manner.

948

1515. At the same time, the prosecution has

failed to brought any other evidence on the file to
prove this story. On the contrary, it is admitted
case of PW-244, R.S.Dhankar that this story came to
their knowledge only after the arrest of accused
Navjot Singh and at the time of his arrest he was
not having any legal evidence against this accused.
If it is so, no reliance can be placed on this
evidence .

1516. In view of the above discussed

factual evidence, it is proved that there is not
even an iota of evidence on the file to say that
accused Navjot Singh was already associated with
accused Paramjit Singh and Jagroop Singh and then
he met accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and joined the
conspiracy and then he helped his co-conspirators
by concealing the arms and ammunitions in his house

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 2

Arrest and search of house of accused
Navjot Singh and recovery of the alleged
incriminating documents, Ex.PW91/23 to
Ex.PW91/30 and its evidentiary value and
its relevancy to link this accused with
conspiracy specially when no arms and
ammunitions etc. were recovered.

1517. As stated

circumstance relied upon
accused Navjot Singh,

earlier, the only material
by the prosecution against
to link him with this

949

conspiracy, was that it was disclosed by accused
Jagtar Singh Tara that out of the arms and
ammunitions brought by accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
to Chandigarh, the extra part of that arms &
ammunitions was kept concealed in the bed room of
accused Navjot Singh, who was part and parcel of
this conspiracy. However, as stated earlier, even
this aspect of this case is not substantiated with
any cogent and plausible evidence.

1518. For the sake of repetition, it will

not be out of place to mention that PW-244,
R.S.Dhankar has also admitted that apart from the
information supplied by accused Jagtar Singh Tara,
he was having no legal evidence on the file against
accused Navjot Singh, when he raided the house of
accused Navjot Singh and arrested him. Even the,
stand of PW-244, R.S.Dhankar about oral information
is self contradictory and highly doubtful because
it is admitted case of PW-244 that accused Jagtar
Singh Tara disclosed these facts on 15.9.1995
including the involvement of Navjot Singh and he
also disclosed that the remaining part of the arms
and ammunitions has been kept concealed in the
house of Navjot Singh despite the fact that accused
Jagtar Singh Tara was arrested on 13-09-95. And
even if it was so, PW-244 was required to raid the
house of accused Navjot Singh immediately on
15.9.1995 itself but no raid was conducted on that
day or immediate thereafter.

950

1519. Not even this, he further admitted
that accused Jagtar Singh Tara has also identified
and located the house of accused Navjot Singh on
16.9.1995 but despite this no search was conducted
in the house of accused Navjot Singh on that day
and there is explanation on the file as to why the
accused Navjot Singh was not arrested immediately
despite the fact that there was a serious
allegation against him as to possessing a huge
quantity of arms and explosives and despite the
fact that PW-244 was satisfied regarding the
availability of explosive substance in the house of
Navjot Singh. Thus, this aspect further shows that
accused Navjot Singh has been involved only on the
basis of unverified information and without any
home work, for the reasons best known to the CBI .

1520. Not even this, even when the house of
the accused Navjot Singh was raided on 17.9.1995
and he was apprehended, PW-244 has neither
interrogated him nor recorded any disclosure
statement or confession of this accused despite the
fact that PW-244 alleged that when he arrested
accused Navjot Singh, he admitted that some part of
the explosive substance has been brought from the
house of Jagroop Singh and was kept in his house.
Not even this, it is further admitted by PW-244
that accused Navjot Singh was not arrested prior to
the disclosing of above facts. If it is so, that

951

information was neither admissible as a confession
under the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act nor was sufficient to search the house
without ascertaining the veracity of the same. Not
even this, he further admitted that after the
arrest of accused Navjot Singh, he asked him to
produce the explosive substance but nothing was
produced .

1521. No doubt, the learned defence counsel

has challenged the factum of search of the house of
accused Navjot Singh on various grounds including
the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of
Cr.P.C, however, even if we ignore those grounds
and believe that a raid was conducted, the question
comes what was the outcome of that raid and how the
recovery made on the basis of the raid has any
relevancy with this case.

1522. Above all, when PW-244 conducted the

search of the house of accused Navjot Singh, no
explosive substance or even any type of illegal arm
or any other incriminating article was recovered
from the search to link this accused with this
conspiracy, despite the fact that there was a
genuine information with the PW-244 in this regard.
If it is so, this fact alone shows that the entire
story put forward by the prosecution to arrest
accused Navjot Singh and to search his house is
without any basis and lacks legal force. Not even

952

this, there is no explanation on the file as to why
the prosecution has not verified as to how and
under what circumstances, the arms and ammunitions,
if kept, in the house of accused Navjot Singh, were
removed and who removed it.

1523. On the other hand, it is alleged by
the prosecution that during the search proceedings,
the prosecution recovered certain documents on
loose papers and a diary of accused Navjot Singh
Ex.PW244/3, which was containing incriminating
writings as to the assassination of Beant Singh,
Ex.PW91/23 to Ex.PW91/25 and even on the loose
sheets running into four pages Ex.PW91/26 to
Ex.PW91/30, it was mentioned that late Beant Singh
should be killed for his illegal acts of omissions
and commissions qua the Sikh community.

1524. However, the question comes, even if
it is presumed that these writings were recovered
from the house of accused Navjot Singh, whether
those were sufficient to link him with this
conspiracy for which the prosecution was required
to brought positive and convincing evidence of his
agreement with the remaining accused persons .
However, after going through these writings and the
evidence related to it, it comes out that the
prosecution has failed to prove that these writings
are sufficient to link him with this conspiracy.

953

1525. Before taking the evidentiary value
of this recovery, let us consider certain
objections of learned defence counsel as to the
search and seizure proceedings, conducted vide
memo, Ex.PW244/2. Admittedly, as argued by learned
defence counsel, no independent witness whatsoever
was joined by PW-244, despite the fact that he was
having an advance information for this raid, as it
is admitted case of PW-244 that on 15.9.1995 itself
he came to know that accused Navjot
Singh has kept explosive substances in his house
for which raid is required to be conducted.

1526. Similarly, it is also admitted by PW-
244 that he was not the Investigating Officer of
this case and as such he was required to take the
written authority from PW-248, S.N.Saxena, who was
the Chief Investigating Officer of this case, by
way of a search warrant as per the requirements of
section 165 of Code of Criminal Procedure. However,
in this case, no such written authorization was
taken from PW-248 but it was alleged that PW-248
authorized PW-244 to conduct the search and
seizure. However, this explanation also lacks
credibility because as stated earlier, PW-244 was
having two days at his disposal to obtain written
authorization from PW-248 as required u/s 165 of
the Cr.P.C. but he failed to get the same.

1527. On the contrary, when PW-248 was

954

confronted on this aspect, he admitted that he had
not given any such warrant or authorization letter
to PW-244 to conduct the raid. On the contrary, PW-
244 himself was knowing about the evidence against
Navjot Singh and arrested him. Not even this, PW-
248 further admits that he was very much present at
Chandigarh at that time. If it is so, why he has
not himself conducted this raid and search is a
fact, which has also not been explained by him.

1528. Not even this, PW-244, also admits
that even the local police was not informed or
involved to raid the house of accused Navjot Singh
as reguired, although, the Chandigarh Police was
taken by him. However, as mentioned earlier even if
ignore all the lacunas, which are material
violations, still the recovery leads no where and
lacks the credibility of incriminating evidence,
sufficient to link the accused Navjot Singh and to
convict him. Now let us see how this recovery is
relevant and inadmissible in evidence.

1529. To prove that the incriminating hand
writings, Ex.PW91/23 to Ex.PW91/25 on the diary,
Ex.PW244/3 and the writings on four loose sheets,
Ex.PW91/26 to Ex.PW91/30 are in the hands of
accused Navjot Singh, the prosecution relied upon
the testimony of PW-91, Ram Singh, PW-92 Gurpreet
Singh and PW-93 Major S.S.Bedi, who were also
working with accused Navjot Singh, in the Ranbaxy,

955

Lab Limited, Mohali, where accused Navjot Singh was
working in the store department and PW-91 to PW-93
are the supervisory officers. However, to the
surprise of the prosecution, all these three
witnesses have failed to toe to the lines of the
prosecution by saying that the disputed writings
mentioned above are in the hands of accused Navjot
Singh .

1530. Although, all these three witnesses
have identified the hand writing of accused Navjot
Singh on the admitted and specimen hand writings
and signatures of accused Navjot Singh, Ex.PW91/l
to Ex.PW91/22, which are the documents taken from
the PW-93, from Ranbaxy Lab Limited and which are
in the hands of accused Navjot Singh and signed by
him and some of these are the documents pertaining
to preparation of passport of accused Navjot Singh.
However, when they were called upon to identify the
disputed writing, they stated that these are not in
the hands of Navjot Singh or they refused to give
any opinion.

1531. Needless to say the disputed writings
were also examined by the document experts and
marked as Q-8 to Q-15 on the writings, Ex.PW91/23
to Ex.PW91/30. However, once these witnesses, who
were the most appropriate persons to identify the
handwriting of accused Navjot Singh, failed to give
any definite opinion about the authorship of the

956

disputed documents, the entire case of the
prosecution in this regard becomes doubtful.

1532. First of all, when PW-91 Ram Singh,
who was the Store Supervisor under whom accused
Navjot Singh was working and who had seen him while
writing and signing so many documents, was called
upon to identify the writing of accused Navjot
Singh on the disputed documents mark Q-8 to Q-15 in
comparison with the admitted hand writing on the
documents Ex.PW91/l to Ex.PW91/22, he deposed that
he is not sure whether the disputed hand writings
mark Q-8 to Q-10 in the diary are in the hands of
accused Navjot Singh but it appears to be similar.
Similarly, he also deposed that he can not confirm
whether the loose sheets mark Q-ll to Q-15 are in
the hands of accused Navjot Singh or not. Thus,
this witness has failed to give any definite
opinion on this aspect and thus his testimony is
insufficient to held so.

1533. Similarly, PW-92 Gurpreet Singh, who
was also working as Store Assistant with accused
Navjot Singh, when called upon to identify the hand
writing of Navjot Singh on the disputed document,
he deposed that he can not recognize these hand
writings. Although, this witness was declared
hostile to the prosecution and was allowed to be
cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor but
even after the cross examination, the learned

957

Public Prosecution could not elicit anything
favourable for the prosecution as far as the
dispute as to the identity of disputed hand writing
is concerned.

1534. PW-93 from whom documents Ex.PW91/l
to Ex.PW91/22 were taken into possession by the CBI
being Security Adviser of Ranbaxy, is a formal
witness, who has simply directed PW-93 to hand over
these documents to CBI .

1535. In view of the above discussed
evidence, it comes out that testimony of PW-91 and
PW-92 is not conclusive proof of authorship of the
disputed documents to be in the hands of accused
Navjot Singh.

1536. Now let us consider the statement of
PW-166, T.R.Nehra, a hand writing and document
expert, who after comparing the disputed writings
on documents, Ex.PW91/23 to Ex.PW91/30, marked as
Q-8 to Q-15 with the admitted hand writing and
signatures of accused Navjot Singh, on the
documents, Ex.PW91/l to Ex.PW91/22, marked as A-69
to A-88, vide his report, Ex.PW166/26 held that
both the guestioned handwriting mark Q-8 to Q-12
and Q-14 and admitted handwriting are in the hands
of one and the same person, whereas the guestioned
writings mark Q-8/1, Q-ll/1, Q-ll/2, Q-14/1 to Q-4
and Q-15 is beyond comparison for want of proper

958

specimen handwriting and it is not possible to
express any opinion qua the same. However, whatever
may be the facts and circumstances even if we
presume that these disputed handwritings are in the
hands of accused Navjot Singh, let us consider what
is written on these writings and how these are
relevant for this conspiracy.

1537. After going through the contents of
all these disputed hand writings marked as Q-8 to
Q-15 and Ex.PW91/23 to Ex.PW91/30, it comes out
that the writings, Ex.PW91/23 to Ex.PW91/25 in the
diary, Ex.PW244/3 is in the form of proceedings of
a meeting of Khalsa Akal Purkh ki Fau j , and some
resolutions have been passed but none of these
resolutions has any relation, as far as the present
conspiracy is concerned, as all these resolutions
are for the glory of the Sikh community and the
do's and dont's, which should be carried out by the
Sikh community.

1538. Similarly, the writings, Ex.PW91/26
to Ex.PW91/30 on four loose sheets is also
regarding the same facts. However, one of these
sheets Ex.PW91/28 says about some resolutions, one
of which says that "water will not flow in SYL
canal but blood of KPS, Beant Singh and his corrupt
cabinet colleagues along with their friends would
flow in SYL canal and will meet with the blood of
Bhajan Lai and his corrupt cabinet colleagues in

959

Haryana and their blood will flow through Delhi
taking corrupt PMs and his party men

in the Arabian sea and bay of

Bengal." However, now let us see whether this
writing has any link with this conspiracy even if
it is presumed that it is in the hands of accused
Navjot Singh. Needless to say, this writing has
been alleged to be the only incriminating
circumstance to link Navjot Singh with this
conspiracy .

1539. Accordingly, when the contents and
the intent of this writing was considered with
legal principles reguired to prove a conspiracy, we
see nothing in it except mention of few feelings.
Even The said feeling is not of accused Navjot
Singh alone, but it is shown to be the feeling of
the total Sikh community represented by 101 Khalsa
soldiers, who took part in some meeting and even if
we assume that this writing is in the hands of
Navjot Singh, it does not mean that it was having
any link with this conspiracy.

1540. Simply because of the fact that in
the writing it is mentioned that the blood of Beant
Singh will flow in SYL Canal, it does not mean that
it was referred to this conspiracy or plan,
specially when no date or year has been mentioned
on these writings, even to say that it was prior to
or after the killing of Beant Singh. However, since

960

the diary, Ex.PW244/3 is of the year 1992, it can
be presumed that it was some where in 1992 and one
more clue about this is that this writing is on the
pages dated l,June, 1992 to 11, June, 1992 and we
can apply a wild guess to say that this must be at
least of the year 1992 and thus, can not be linked
with this conspiracy, which took place in the year
1995 .

1541. At the same time, a perusal of the
whole writings shows that there is no reference at
all as to the plan or conspiracy to kill Beant
Singh. Nowhere it mentions about the arms and
ammunitions with which they are planning to
eliminate Beant Singh. There is also no reference
about Navjot Singh conspiring with other accused
persons or vice versa. Under these circumstance, it
is clear that except the mentioning of words, 'flow
of blood of Beant Singh in SYL canal' there is
nothing in this document, which is of any
significance and if the document is read as a
whole, we see nothing incriminating against this
accused. However, unfortunately, the CBI considered
this document as a substantial proof to link this
accused with this case.

1542. Last but not the least, even if we
presumed that by way of this writing, accused
Navjot Singh felt like killing the persons
mentioned in the writing, it is not sufficient to

961

conclude that it relates to this conspiracy, which
has been proved to be initiated by accused Jagtar
Singh Hawara and others who are sitting in foreign
countries and that too, in agreement with those
accused persons or they were also present at that
time. Thus no inference of any conspiracy can be
drawn .

1543. A similar document recovered from one
of the accused involved in the killing of late
Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi was pressed into
service as an incriminating circumstance against
that accused, in which also a similar writing as to
the feelings was mentioned, but the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that such type of writing cannot be
eguated with a substantial proof of a conspiracy as
the material ingredient of conspiracy is that there
must be evidence to indicate that accused was in
agreement with other accused persons to do the act,
which was the ultimate object and such a document
was held to be a scrap paper and was excluded from
consideration and it was held that it can not be
made basis to convict a person. Similar principle
was reiterated in State of Tamilnadu Vs. S.Nalini's
case (Supra), known as Rajiv Gandhi murder trial.

1544. Similarly in Aravindan and others'

case supra, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in a case
where a speech given by a person along with slogan
raised against the Government was made a basis for

962

a charge under Section 121-A of IPC, with
conspiracy and the Hon'ble Kerala High Court while
deciding the question whether those allegations
amounts to an offence under section 121-A of the
IPC, held that a solgan that a Government can be
changed by an armed revolution does not mean that
there is a conspiracy to change the Government by
criminal force and simply because of the fact that
some slogans have been raised for the revolution,
it will not make the same as the intention to over
awe the Government by means of criminal force.

1545. Similarly in Balwant Singh's case

(supra) again under the similarly circumstances,
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the raising of
slogans a couple of times by two individuals
without anything more, did not constitute any
threat to the Government as by law established nor
could the same give rise to the feeling of enmity
or hatred among different communities. Similarly in
the present case, simply because of the fact that
accused Navjot Singh has some writings showing some
religious feelings qua the work and conduct of
S.Beant Singh and to take revenge for his illegal
acts, it will not be sufficient to say that he was
doing so being a part and parcel of this conspiracy
and being an active member of the group which meet
to eliminate S.Beant Singh as per the story of the
prosecution .

963

1546. The sequel to the above discussion is
that the entire story of the prosecution to link
this accused with this case on the basis of the
recovery of alleged writings, is inadmissible in
evidence and cannot be made basis to convict him
for this serious offence.

CIRCUMSTANCE NO . 3

Confession of co-accused Jagtar Singh
Tara.

1547. Needless to say the other evidence
pressed into service against Navjot Singh was the
confession made by accused Jagtar Singh Tara but as
discussed earlier, this confession can not be
utilized as a direct evidence to convict the
accused but it can be used to corroborate the other
evidence which is otherwise sufficient to convict
this accused. The most appropriate authority on
this aspect is Nathu Vs. State of U.T., AIR, 1956,
Supreme Court, page 56, where the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that even under the provision of Section
30 of Indian Evidence Act, confession of co-accused
are not substantive evidence as defined in Section
3 and no conviction can be founded thereon but if
there was other evidence on which conviction can be
based, such a confession can be referred to as
corroborative circumstance to lend assurance. ]

1548. This very principle was again

964

reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hari Charan
Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar, AIR, 1964, Supreme Court
1184, there again the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated
that while dealing with the case against accused
person, the court can not start with a confession
of a co-accused person, it must began with other
evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it
has formed its opinion with regard to the guality
and effect of the said evidence, then it is
permissible to turn to the confession in order to
receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt and
thus confession of co-accused person is not per se
a substantive evidence, which can be pressed into
service to convict an accused and lastly, this
principle was again reiterated in State Vs. Navjot
Sandhu's case (Supra) and in Alok Nath's case
(Supra) .

1549. In view of the above discussed legal

position, it comes out that the confession of
accused Jagtar Singh Tara can not be made basis to
link this accused with this conspiracy, specially
when in both the confessional statement of both the
other accused Balwant Singh and Shamsher Singh,
they have not named this accused being a member of
this conspiracy. At the same time, as discussed
earlier, there no other evidence what to talk of
cogent evidence to support the facts disclosed by
accused Jagtar Singh Tara against accused Navjot
Singh .

965

1550. Similarly, DW-5, Tirlok Singh, father
of this accused, when stepped into the witness box
categorically and vehemently deposed that his son
has been falsely implicated in this case by the
Police and all his efforts and representations made
to the higher authorities remained unheard and the
evidence brought before this court justify the
defence put forward by the father of the accused,
which is further supported by DW-3, R.S.Bajwa, a
neighbour of this accused.

1551. However, although accused Navjot
Singh has relied upon copy of judgment, Ex.DW-4/A
but the same has no relevancy for his defence, as
that judgment was relating to a case registered at
Delhi vide FIR no. 681 of 1995 for commission of
offences u/s 120-B of IPC read with Sections 121,
122, 124-A along with Section 4 & 5 of Explosive
Substance Act, in which he was arrested and taken
to Delhi but after that, when he was arrested in
the present case and in view of the notification of
the Chandigarh Administration under Section 268 (1)
of the Cr.PC, he was not produced at Delhi and the
case pending against him at Delhi was decided only
against his co-accused, whereas the trial against
him is still pending. If it is so, no benefit of
this judgment can be given to this accused.

1552. No-doubt, DW-4, Mohkam Singh, who was

966

co-accused with this accused in the above case,
deposed that during the pendency of the case at
Delhi, when he met accused Navjot Singh in Tihar
Jail, accused Navjot Singh disclosed him that
police has implicated him in criminal case of Delhi
for pressurising him to become a witness relating
to the present case, despite the fact that he has
no concern with the assassination of Beant Singh.
He also deposed that accused Navjot Singh was at
that time tortured and harassed.

1553. However whatever may be facts and

circumstances, the above stand of this witness was
only to show the innocence of accused Navjot Singh.
However, his contention as to the false implication
of accused Navjot Singh in the case pending at
Delhi, is without any basis as no findings in this
regard has been delivered by the competent court of
jurisdiction at Delhi in favour of accused Navjot
Singh as he has not been tried in the said case
till today.

1554. However the statement of DW-4 can be

considered as a ground to show the circumstances in
which accused Navjot Singh was linked with this
case and which is also substantiated from the above
discussed factual and legal position and further
goes to show that this accused has been arrested
and challaned, despite there being no legal
evidence against him to substantiate the charge of

967

conspiracy and in these circumstances, his plea of
false implication is seems to be plausible.

1555. The sequel to the above discussion is
that as far as accused Navjot Singh is concerned,
the prosecution has failed to link him with this
conspiracy and its execution with cogent and
reliable evidence and as such, he is entitled for
benefit of doubt an deserve acquittal.

1556. Before coming to the final
conclusions, let us consider one more aspect of
this assassination, which relates to the killing of
Dilawar Singh in this blast. As discussed earlier
while taking the case of assassin Dilawar Singh qua
his role in the assassination, as argued by the
prosecution, it was found that this accused was
instigated by the remaining accused persons to act
as a human bomb and to kill himself, with an object
to kill S.Beant Singh and all this was done by them
in prosecution of their conspiracy with an oblique
motive to kill S.Beant Singh and while doing so,
all those accused persons were knowing that they
are also committing an offence of abetment of
suicide which is punishable as an offence under
Section 306 read with Section 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code.

1557. No doubt, it was alleged by the
defence that accused-assassin Dilwar Singh offered

968

himself to act as a human bomb, but this plea has
not been substantiated from the evidence available
on record. On the other hand, the entire set of
circumstances leading to the initiation,
preparation and execution of this conspiracy, show
that deceased Dilawar Singh was emotionally allured
and goaded to act as a human bomb, to be known as a
martyr and because of this instigation, emotional
pressures and abetment, he was prevailed upon to
commit suicide for the killing of S.Beant Singh. As
such this plea of the defence is not tenable and
rejected outrightly.

1558. In view of the above discussed

peculiar situation, this Court will be failing in
its duties if the accused, who would be held liable
for the commission of offence of assassination of
S.Beant Singh along with 16 other persons, are not
punished for their obligue motive of abetting the
suicide by Dilawar Singh by acting as a human bomb.
Thus this aspect will also be considered while
convicting the accused persons for the
assassination of S.Beant Singh.

1559. Empassing it would not be out of

place to mention here, the prosecution has placed
on the file the sanction of the Central Govt as
granted by Home Secretary to the Chandigarh
Administration, U.T., for the prosecution of all
the accused persons for commission of offences

969

under the Explosive Substance Act as per the orders
Ex.PW248/6, as required under Section 7 of the said
Act .

FINAL ORDER

1560. As per the above discussed legal and

factual position and for the detailed reasons
mentioned above, while deciding the points for
determination, it comes out that the prosecution
has successfully proved that accused Balwant Singh,
Jagtar Singh Hawara, Gurmit Singh, Lakhwinder Singh
Shamsher Singh, deceased Dilawar Singh, Jagtar
Singh Tara, now a proclaimed offender, in this
trial, being part and parcel of a well laid and
executed conspiracy, involving many more persons
including the accused, who are absconders and
proclaimed offenders, committed various acts of
omission and commissions, as discussed above and
killed S.Beant Singh, then Chief Minister Punjab,
along with sixteen other innocent persons and
seriously injured 15 other persons, with an
intention to kill them also, by exploding the belt
bomb strapped on the body of deceased assassin
Dilawar Singh, who on the instigation of all the
accused persons, acted as a human bomb and
detonates himself near the car of late S.Beant
Singh, killing him and other persons and in which
process, he (Dilawar hSingh) , too was exterminated,
in a macabre and gruesome manner.

970

1561. And all this was done by all the

above-mentioned accused persons in prosecution of
their conspiracy, which was master-minded by
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara on the instigation of
some more persons, who plotted and floated this
conspiracy, while sitting in some foreign
countries. Not even this while doing so all the
above named accused persons were fully knowing
that the mode chosen by them to kill late Beant
Singh, to satisfy their religious objective, being
a bomb consisting of RDX as main explosive and
other projectiles and splinters as missiles and to
make it more lethal adding a high explosive
substance as detonator, will also result into
brutal killing of many more innocent persons for no
fault of them.

1562. It is also proved that for the

commission of offence of murder of deceased S. Beant
Singh, all the above named accused persons,
unlawfully possessed RDX, which is high explosive
substance with intend, by means thereof to endanger
human life or cause serious injuries to property
and they also used the said RDX for the preparation
of belt bomb, used by deceased Dilawar Singh, to
kill S. Beant Singh, then Chief Minister, Punjab and
all of them unlawfully and maliciously caused an
explosion fully knowing that it will endanger life
and cause serious repercussions to the society in

971

general and loss of human life and injuries and
loss to the property in particular.

1563. As such, let us consider, for what
offences the accused persons are liable to be
convicted. Needless to say, it is proved with
cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable
doubt that all the above named accused persons,
being part and parcel of conspiracy hatched by
accused Jagtar Singh Hawara on the asking of some
other accused persons, as held above, killed
S.Beant Singh and 16 other persons by way of a bomb
blast caused by deceased Dilawar Singh acting as a
human bomb and as such the conspiracy to commit the
offence of murder in the course of execution of
conspiracy, is well within the scope of conspiracy,
to which all the above accused persons were party.

1564. Therefore, all the above named
accused persons i.e. Balwant Singh, Jagtar Singh
Hawara, Gurmit Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Shamsher
Singh and deceased Dilawar Singh, are liable to be
punished under Section 120-B IPC read with Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under
Section 120-B read with Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code, as all the accused persons, named
above, took active part in the series of steps
taken to pursue the objective of conspiracy i.e the
killing of S.Beant Singh, then Chief Minister,
Punjab. Besides this, they are also liable to be

972

convicted for commission of an offence under
Section 3 (b) read with Section 6 of the Explosive
Substance Act, 1908, read with Section 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code, and also for commission of an
offence under Sections 4 b(ii) and 5(b) read with
Section 6 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, as
the explosive recovered from the possession of this
accused is a special category explosive substance,
as defined under section 2(b) of the above Act.

1565. At the same time, it is also proved
on the file that all the above named accused
persons instigated Dilawar Singh to act as a human
bomb and abetted him to kill S.Beant Singh and 16
other persons and as such they are liable for
punishment on this account also for the commission
of an offence of abetment of suicide by Dilawar
Singh, who though was also killed while killing
S.Beant Singh and others but he was instigated to
do so by the above named accused persons, which
makes them liable for commission of an offence
punishable under section 109 read with Section 306
read with Section 120-B of the IPC.

1566. But as far as deceased Dilawar Singh
is concerned, all the charges stand abatted against
him due to his death in the blast.

1567. However, as far as accused Nasib
Singh is concerned, the prosecution has failed to

973

link him with the conspiracy in hand in any manner
as discussed above. But it is proved on the file
that this accused kept in his possession 13.700 kg
of RDX, which is high explosive substance, fully
knowing its nature with intend, by means there of
to endanger life or cause serious injuries to
property and to use for illegal purposes, which is
punishable as an offence u/s 5 (b) of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908, as the explosive recovered
from the possession of this accused is a special
category explosive substance, as defined under
section 2(b) of the above Act.

1568. But as far as accused Navjot Singh is
concerned, the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove him to be involved in this conspiracy either
directly or indirectly, on the contrary, this
accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for being
not linked with the offence in question in any
manner with cogent and reliable evidence beyond a
shadow of reasonable doubt and as such he deserves
to be acquitted under the doctrine of benefit of
doubt .

1569. As a final conclusion to the above
discussions, the following orders are hereby
passed : -

1. As far as accused Navjot Singh is

concerned, since the prosecution has failed to

974

prove his guilt, as per the requirements of
the law, therefore, by giving him the benefit
of doubt, he stands acquitted of the charges
framed against him in this case. He be
released forthwith if not required in any
other case.

2. As far as accused Nasib Singh is

concerned, although he is held to be not
involved in the conspiracy of killing late
S.Beant Singh, then Chief Minister , Pun j ab in
any manner but as held above, he kept in his
possession 13.700 kg of RDX illegally and for
unlawful purposes. Thus, he is hereby held
guilty and convicted for commission of an
offence punishable u/s 5 (b) of the Explosive
Substance Act, 1908. But he stands acquitted
from all other charges framed against him.

3. As far as the remaining accused persons
namely Balwant Singh, Jagtar Singh Hawara,
Lakhwinder Singh, Gurmit Singh and Shamsher
Singh are concerned, all of them are hereby
held guilty and convicted as under :-

(i) For commission of an offence
under Section 302 read with Section
120-B of the IPC.

(ii) For commission of an offence

975

under Section 307 read with Section
120-B of the IPC.

(iii) For commission of an offence
under section 109 read with Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code read
with Section 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code.

(iv) For commission of an offence
under Section 3 (b) read with
Section 6 of the Explosive
Substance Act, 1908 read with
Section 120-B of the IPC.

(v) For commission of offence

under Section 4 b(ii) read with
Section 6 of the Explosive
Substance Act, 1908 read with
Section 120-B of the IPC.

(vi) For commission of

offence under Section 5 (b) read
with Section 6 of the Explosive
Substance Act, 1908 read with
Section 120-B of the IPC.

1570. Needless to say anything stated in

this judgment qua all those accused persons, who
are not put on trial including accused Jagtar Singh

976

Tara is for the limited purpose of Section 299 of
the Cr.P.C and it shall not be misconstrued as an
opinion on the merits against those accused
persons. On the other hand, all those accused
persons be put on trial as and when arrested or
surrendered. Similarly this judgment will also not
prejudice the case of Paramjit Singh, who is being
tried separately for this very offence and
conspiracy in any manner.

1571. It is ordered accordingly. Let, all

the accused convicted above be heard on the
question of sentence as per the provisions of
Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.

Pronounced in the open court at Burail Jail, on
July 27, 2007 at Chandigarh.

(Ravi Kumar Sondhi ) ,
Additional Sessions Judge,
Camp at Burail Jail,
Chandigarh .

Certified that this judgment contains 976
pages and all the pages have been checked & signed
by the undersigned.

(Ravi Kumar Sondhi ) ,
Additional Sessions Judge,
Camp at Burail Jail,
Chandigarh .

977

Argued by:

Sh . S . K . Saxena assisted by Sh.R.K.
Handa & Sh.Rajan Malhotra, Spl.P.P
for the CBI.

Sh . A. S . Chahal, Sh . R. C . Sharma,
Sh.S.S.Bawa and Sh . N . S . Minhas ,
Advocates for convicts Gurmeet Singh
Jagtar Singh Hawara, Shamsher Singh,
Lakhwinder Singh and Nasib Singh.

Convict Balwant Singh in person.
ORDER ON SENTENCE

1572. The arguments put forward by the
prosecution as well as the defence on the question
of sentence have been heard.

1573. It is argued by the learned Public
Prosecutor that the offence committed by the
accused persons is not only against a particular
personality but it is also against the humanity at
large, as the accused persons have killed 17
persons and injured many more just for the sake of
their religious enmity against deceased Beant
Singh, fully knowing that the form of bomb chosen
by them will not only kill particular person but it
will also kill so many innocent persons. Even the
time chosen by the accused was the time, when the
offices were going to be closed and all the
employees were rushing out for going to their
houses .

978

1574. Accordingly, it was their contention

that keeping in view the gravity of the offence and
its repercussion on the society, peace and
tranquility of the State, it is a fit case which
can be termed as 'rarest of the rare case'
justifying the capital sentence and it was prayed
accordingly .

1575. Learned Public Prosecutor for the CBI

further submitted that there are more than
sufficient aggravating circumstances which justify
the extreme penalty of death and he substantiated
that first of all, it is a case of pre-planned
conspiracy hatched and executed with lot of
preparations. The target of the accused persons was
a democratically elected Chief Minister of a State,
who was was also the Head of the State, when he was
killed. At the same time, the repercussions of
crime on the society was very serious as it has
tarnished the conscious of the society at large.

1576. Above all, the convicts had chosen a

mode of crime, a bomb made of RDX, which is a high
explosive substance, knowing that it will not only
kill their target but will also results into
killing of others and despite this they caused the
blast with that mode killing 16 innocent persons
for no fault of them besides killing S.Beant Singh
and injuring 15 persons and thereby ruined their

979

families also.

1577. It was also submitted by the learned
Public Prosecutor that the modus operandi of the
convicts in using the human bomb also shows their
criminality and brutality to commit the crime. The
convicts have committed this crime not to take any
personal revenge but it was a pre-planned and
religiously motivated crime under illogical belief.

1578. Not even this, during the pendency of
the trial, accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and Jagtar
Singh Tara escaped from the Jail after digging out
a tunnel and till today accused Jagtar Singh Tara
has not been arrested and this fact further shows
the criminal nature of the accused persons and
their commitment to the crime. Even accused Balwant
Singh while admitting the commission of the crime,
when called upon to give his version on sentence,
he alleged that he does not want to say anything
and he has no remorse for his act, which is also
another aggravating circumstance. Accordingly he
submitted that only the death penalty will be the
appropriate sentence and thus warranted.

1579. On the other hand, the case of the
defence is that all the accused persons convicted
for the offence in question, were those who have
been induced by the others to join the conspiracy
and this fact alone is a mitigating circumstance,

980

which justifies leniency qua the convicts. They
further submitted that simply because of the fact
that high profile person was the victim of the
crime, it can not be said that it is a case of
rarest of the rare spice. Therefore, it is a fit
case, where they deserve this leniency specially
when they have already suffered a lot by this
protracted trial for a span of about 12 years and
their families have also been disturbed and the
facts and circumstances and the prevailing
situation at that time was so volatile that it
prevailed upon and instigated them to take this
step and it shows that they were having no personal
motive behind this crime.

1580. Not even this, it was further

submitted by the learned defence counsel that there
are some more mitigating circumstances, which this
Court is required to take into consideration while
sentencing the convicts. To substantiate this, he
submitted that the offence in question cannot be
treated as a brutal act but it was only an
emotional act, as mentioned above and thus it
itself is a mitigating circumstance. At the same
time, all these convicts were very young and
innocent persons when they committed this crime and
even now they are in their prime age, which should
also be considered to impose lesser punishment
keeping in view the modern theory of reformation
and rehabilitation, specially when there is nothing

981

on the file to prove this fact otherwise.

1581. He further submitted that at the same
time, this case is based on circumstantial evidence
and as such as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Sahdeo Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (10)
SCC 682 and Alok Nath Dutta Vs. State of West
Bengal 2007 (1) RCR (Crl) 468, it itself is a
ground for not imposing the extreme penalty as
there is a possibility of break in the chain of
circumstances .

1582. The learned defence counsel further
submitted that as far as accused Lakhwinder Singh,
Gurmeet Singh and Shamsher Singh are concerned,
they are not previous convicts or having any
history of criminal acts. Their act and conduct
during the trial was also found to be good and as
such on this ground also, they crave for lenient
sentence. Even there is no evidence on the file to
say that accused convicts Jagtar Singh Hawara and
Balwant Singh are hardened criminals or terrorists.
On the contrary, convict Balwant Singh was fair and
honest enough in admitting this crime, which also
shows his act and conduct.

1583. Lastly, another strange argument put-
forward by the learned counsel for the convicts was
that as deposed by DW-17 Paramjit Kaur, deceased
Beant Singh was guilty of commission of various

982

atrocities on the Sikh Community and as such the
convicts were having no option but to kill him and
even in the history of Sikhs, Beant Singh is known
as Butcher and this fact be also considered while
inflicting sentence on the convicts. Not even this,
some of the accused convicts have also placed on
the file a written arguments signed by them along
with two books i.e. "Genesis of Terrorism in
Punjab" in English and "Mukti De Parwane - Shama
Jagdi Rakho" justifying this killing as per their
religious thoughts and theory. With these
averments, they prayed for the sentence of life
imprisonment saying that there is no exceptional
circumstance to make it a rarest of rare case.

1584. Then taking the case of convict Nasib

Singh, it was submitted that he is an old man of 63
years of age and already remained in jail for about
12 years and keeping in view the fact that he has
no link with this conspiracy and there is no
evidence that he kept the RDX intentionally with
illegal purpose and as such he should be released
as he has already undergone sufficient imprisonment
by taking a lenient view in his favour. Whereas the
learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
explosive recovered from the possession of accused
Nasib Singh is a special category explosive
substance which is punishable under clause 5 (b) of
the Explosive Substances Act and as such keeping in
view this special reason, he is not entitled for

983

any leniency and as such he should also be punished
deterrently .

1585. Both the parties have relied upon
various authorities to support their contentions.

1586. After due consideration of the
contentions of both the parties and after
considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, and the case law relied upon, it comes out
that as far as the consideration on the quantum of
sentence in a case of conviction for an offence
punishable with death or in alternative with
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for term of
years, is concerned, the court has to state the
reasons for the sentence awarded and in case of
sentence of death, the special reasons for such
cases .

1587. Needless to say, before the amendment
of the Cr.P.C in the year 1973, the earlier
provision obliged the court to pass the death
sentence as a general proposition and the
alternative sentence could be awarded only in the
exceptional cases for which court was then required
to give special reasons. However, after 1973,
there was a complete reversal to this provision as
Section 354(3) of the Cr.P.C, now provides that
life imprisonment will be the rule as the quantum
of sentence of the murder and the death penalty was

984

allowed to be passed only in exceptional cases and
that too, by mentioning special reasons for
choosing the later.

1588. Is this case is an instance of rarest
of the rare case, meriting imposition of capital
punishment is now the question for consideration?

1589. As far as, the parameters to decide
this controversy are concerned, in Bachan Singh Vs.
State of Punjab case (Supra) , a Constitution Bench
of Hon'ble Apex Court, dealt with the validity of
death sentence and while doing so, the rule of
rarest of rare cases was laid down.

1590. During pre-Bachan Singh period the
Sessions Court was free to choose death penalty in
any case where special reasons could be advanced.
But during post-Bachan Singh period even that was
drastically changed as the Hon'ble Constitution
Bench made it impermissible to award death sentence
except in rarest of the rare cases wherein the
lesser alternative is unquestionably foreclosed.

1591. As the law which has been pronounced
in such unreserved language on the subject, holds
the field over thereafter we are required to remind
ourselves of the legal position adumbrated by the
Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh' s case (Supra) .
The following is the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble

985

Apex court, which emerged after making a detailed
analysis of various view points on the
sustainability of the provision empowering the
Court to pass death sentence.

1592. It is therefore imperative to voice

the concern that Courts, aided by the broad
illustrative guidelines indicated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, will discharge the onerous function
with evermore scrupulous care and humane concern,
directed along the highroad of legislative policy
outlined in Section 354(3) . This was what was held
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bachan Singh's case
(Supra), where the Hon'ble Apex Court further
observed that:

"for persons convicted of murder, life
imprisonment is the rule and death
sentence an exception. A real and abiding
concern for the dignity of human life
postulates resistance to taking a life
through law's instrumentality. That ought
not to be done save in the rarest of rare
cases when the alternative option is
unguestionably foreclosed."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court further laid
down that : -

"As we read Sections 354 (3) and
235(2) and other related provisions
of the Code of 1973, it is guite
clear to us that for making the
choice of punishment or for
ascertaining the existence or absence

986

of ''special reasons' in that context,
the Court must pay due regard both to
the crime and the criminal. What is
the relative weight to be given to
the aggravating and mitigating
factors, depends on the facts and
circumstances of the particular
case . "

The Hon'ble Apex Court concluded that:-

"We will do no more than to say that
these are undoubtedly relevant
circumstances and must be given great
weight in the determination of
sentence . "

1593. Three such circumstances which the

court was told about are the following:

(1) The age of the accused- if the accused
is young or old the sentence of death
should be avoided.

(2) The probability that the accused would
not commit criminal acts of violence as
would constitute a continuing threat to
society .

(3) That the accused acted under duress or
domination of another person.

1594. In addition to this, the Hon'ble Apex

Court also endorsed the classification of some of
the mitigating and aggravating circumstances as
propounded by Dr.Chitale which are as follow:

987

Aggravating circumstances :

1595. A Court may, however, in the

following cases impose the penalty of death in its
discretion :

(a) If the murder has been committed
after previous planning and involves
extreme brutality; or

(b) if the murder involves exceptional
depravity; or

(c) if the murder is of a member of any
of the armed forces of the Union or of a
member of any police force or of any
public servant and was committed -

(i) while such member or public servant
was on duty; or

(ii) in conseguence of anything done or
attempted to be done by such member or
public servant in the lawful discharge
of his duty as such member or public
servant whether at the time of murder he
was such member or public servant, as
the case may be, or had ceased to be
such member or public servant; or

(d) if the murder is of a person who had
acted in the lawful discharge of his
duty under Section 43 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 or who had
rendered assistance to a Magistrate or a
police officer demanding his aid or
reguiring his assistance under Section
37 and Section 129 of the said Code."

988

Mitigating Cir exams tances :

1596. In the exercise of its discretion in

the above cases, the Court shall take into account
the following circumstances:

(1) That the offence was committed under
the influence of extreme mental or
emotional disturbance.

(2) The age of the accused, if the
accused is young or old, he shall not be
sentenced to death.

(3) The probability that the accused
would not commit criminal acts of
violence as would constitute a
continuing threat to society.

(4) The probability that the accused can
be reformed and rehabilitated. The State
shall by evidence prove that the accused
does not satisfy the conditions 3 and 4
above .

(5) That in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the accused believed that
he was morally justified in committing
the offence.

(6) That the accused acted under the
duress or domination of another person.

(7) That the condition of the accused
showed that her was mentally defective
and that the said defect impaired his
capacity to appreciate the criminality
of his conduct."

1597. Similarly the above proposition was

989

further carried by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Machhi
Singh Vs. State of Punjab's case (supra) where the
Hon'ble Apex Court settled the following
propositions of law and facts to decide the
controversy in question:

(i) The extreme penalty of death neednot
be inflicted except in gravest cases of
extreme culpability;

(ii) Before opting for the death penalty
the circumstances of the 'offender' also
require to be taken into consideration
along with the circumstances of the

' crime ' .

(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and
death sentence is an exception. In other
words death sentence must be imposed
only when life imprisonment appears to
be an altogether inadequate punishment
having regard to the relevant
circumstances of the crime, and
provided, and only provided, the option
to impose sentence of imprisonment for
life cannot be conscientiously exercised
having regarding to the nature and
circumstances of the crime and all the
relevant circumstances.

(iv) A balance-sheet of aggravating and
mitigating circumstances has to be drawn
up and in doing so, the mitigating
circumstances has to be accorded full
weightage and a just balance has to be
struck between the aggravating and the
mitigating circumstances before the
option is exercised.

1598. The illustrative circumstances which

990

were laid down in the aforementioned cases and were
reiterated in Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab's
case (supra) are:

1. When the murder is committed in an
extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical,
revolting, or dastardly manner so as to
arouse intense and extreme indignation
of the community.

2. When the murder is committed for a
motive which evinces total depravity and
meanness; e.g. murder by hired assassin
for money or reward; or cold-blooded
murder for gains of a person vis-a-vis
whom the murderer is in a dominating
position or in a position of trust; or
murder is committed in course of
betrayal of the motherland.

3. When murder of a member of a
Scheduled Caste or minority community
etc. is committed not for personal
reasons but in circumstances which
arouse social wrath; or in case of
"bride-burning" or "dowry deaths" or
when murder is committed in order to
remarry for the sake of extracting dowry
once again or to marry another woman on
account of infatuation.

4 . When the crime is enormous in
proportion. For instance when multiple
murders, say of all or almost all the
members of a family or a large number of
persons of a particular caste,
community, or locality, are committed.

5. When the victim of murder is an
innocent child, or a helpless woman or
old or infirm person or a person vis-a-

991

vis whom the murderer is in a dominating
position, or a public figure generally
loved and respected by the community.

1599. Similarly, in Surendra Pal
Shivbalakpal Vs. State of Gujarat 2005 (3) SCC 121 ,

death sentence was not imposed in a case where the
offence involved was rape with murder of a girl,
stating :

"13. The next question that arises
for consideration is whether this is
a "rarest of rare case" we do not
think that this is a "rarest of rare
case" in which death penalty should
be imposed on the appellant. The
appellant was aged 36 years at the
time of the occurrence and there is
no evidence that the appellant had
been involved in any other criminal
cases previously and appellant was a
migrant labourer from U.P. and was
living in impecunious circumstances
and it cannot be said that he would
be a menace to society in future and
no materials are placed before us to
draw such a conclusion. We do not
think that the death penalty was
warranted in this case. We confirm
conviction of the appellant on all
the counts but the sentence of death
penalty imposed on him for the
offence under Section 302 IPC is
commuted to life imprisonment."

1600. Then again in Rama Subramanian Vs.
State of Kerala AIR 2006 SC 639, this Court did not
award a death penalty where a lady, together with

992

her three children, was killed, despite arriving at
a finding that the evidence adduced by the
prosecution is very clear and convincing to prove
the guilt of the appellant, stating:

" It is true that the crime

committed by the appellant is cruel
and dastardly in nature and the
appellant deserves no mercy. However,
it may be noted that it is not known
how and under what circumstances the
incident had taken place on 9.8.1999,
the appellant was annoyed by the fact
that his services were terminated
without being paid any compensation
despite serving his employer for
quite a long period. Taking the
overall facts into consideration, we
do not find that this is one of the
rarest of the rare cases where death
sentence could be the only
punishment "

1601. As far as circumstances justing

Death penalty is concerned in State of Rajasthan
Vs. Kheraj Ram, 2003 (8) SCC 224, the Hon'ble Apex
Court while awarding death punishment, held:

"35. A convict hovers between life and
death when the question of gravity of
the offence an award of adequate
sentence comes up for consideration.
Mankind has shifted from the state of
nature towards a civilized society and
it is no longer the physical opinion of
the majority that takes away the liberty
of a citizen by convicting him and
making him suffer a sentence of
imprisonment. Award of punishment

993

following conviction at a trial in a
system wedded to the rule of law is the
outcome of cool deliberation in the
courtroom after adequate hearing is
afforded to the parties, accusations are
brought against the accused, the
prosecution is given an opportunity of
meeting accusations by establishing his
innocence. It is the outcome of cool
deliberation and the screening of the
material by the informed man i.e. the
Judge that leads to determination of the
life.

36. The principle of proportion

between crime and punishment is a
principle of just deserts that serves as
the foundation of every criminal
sentence that is justifiable. As a
principle of criminal justice it is
hardly less familiar or less important
than the principle that only the guilty
ought to be punished. Indeed, the
requirement that punishment need not b
disproportionately great, which is a
corollary of just deserts, is dictated
by the same principle that does not
allow punishment of the innocent for any
punishment in excess of what is deserved
for the criminal conduct is punishment
without guilt.

37. The criminal law adheres in

general to the principle of

proportionality in prescribing liability
according to the culpability of each
kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily
allows some significant discretion to
the Judge in arriving at a sentence of
each case, presumably to permit
sentences that reflect more subtle
considerations of culpability that are
raised by the special facts of each
case. Judges in essence affirm that

994

punishment ought always to fit the
crime; yet in practice sentences are
determined large by other

considerations. Sometimes it is the
correctional needs of the perpetrator
that are offered to justify a sentence.
Sometimes the desirability of keeping
him out of circulation, and sometimes
even the terrific results of his crime.
Inevitable, these considerations, caused
a departure from just deserts as the
basis of punishment and create cases of
apparent injustice that are serious and
widespread . "

1602. Recently in State through NCT Delhi

Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, 2005 Criminal Law
Journal, page 3950, nine persons including eight
security personnel and one gardener succumbed to
the bullets of the terrorists and 16 persons
including 13 security men received injuries as a
result of storming of the Parliament by 5
terrorists. The Hon'ble Apex Court upholding the
decision of the High Court to award death penalty,
observed :

"The very idea of attacking and
overpowering a sovereign democratic
institution by using powerful arms and
explosives and imperiling the safety of
a multitude of peoples' representatives,
constitutional functionaries and

officials of Government of India and a
engaging into a combat with security
forces is a terrorist act of gravest
severity. It is a classic example of
rarest of rare case."

995

1603. Again in Holiram Bordoloi Vs. State
of Assam, 2005 (3) SCC 793, 18 persons were
convicted for murdering 4 persons by burning them
alive in a hut. Death penalty was imposed on one of
them. The Hon'ble Apex Court, embarked on a
discussion as a to the aggravating circumstances
and mitigating circumstances, observing:

"Pre-planned, calculated, cold-blooded
murder has always been regarded as one
of an aggravated kind." A "murder is
diabolically conceived and cruelty
executed", it would justify the
imposition of the death penalty on the
murderer.... In many cases, the
extremely cruel of beastly manner of th
commission of murder is itself a
demonstrated index of the depraved
character of the perpetrator. This is
why it is not desirable to consider the
circumstances of the crime and the
circumstances of the criminal in two
separate watertight compartments . "

The Hon'ble Apex Court also affirming the
death penalty, held:

"Even when questioned under Section
235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, the
accused stated that he had nothing to
say on the point of sentence. The fact
that the appellant remained silent would
show that he has no repentance for the
ghastly act he committed."

1604. One more precedent in this regard is
the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

996

in Pratap Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and another,
2005 (3) SCC 557, where a Trade Union leader was
shot dead by the convict, as a result of a labour
dispute. The Hon'ble Apex Court while taking into
consideration the plea of delay and the pendency of
the appeals since 1991 held that simply because of
the fact that there was long lapse of time, it
cannot be said that the death sentence is not
justified .

1605. Lastly in Alok Nath Gupta & others
Vs. State of West Bengal, 2007(1), RCC, page 586,

the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the entire
case law on the matter in issue held that death
penalty can be awarded if in the opinion of court,
the case answers the description of rarest of rare
case. What would constitute a rarest of rare case
must be determined in the facts situation obtaining
in each case and a balance sheet of aggravating and
mitigating circumstances has to be drawn and
considered as the judicial precedent by itself may
not be a ground to laid down any uniform criteria
for awarding death penalty or a lesser sentence.

1606. Similarly on the same topic i.e. on
the methodology of death sentence, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Subhash Ramkumar Vs . State of Maharashtra
(JT) 2002 (9) SC 445 and while balancing the
discretionary power and disproportionate and
inadequacy of sentence, the Hon'ble Apex Court held

997

that :

"Ours being a civilised society - a
tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye
ought not to be the criterion and as
such the question of there being acting
under any haste in regard to the capital
punishment would not arise: Rather our
jurisprudence speaks of the factum of
the law courts being slow in that
direction and it is in that perspective
a reasonable proportion has to be
maintained between the heinousness of
the crime and the punishment. While it
is true punishment disproportionately
severe ought not to be passed but that
does not even clothe the law courts,
however, with an option to award the
sentence which would be manifestly
inadequate having due regard to the
nature of offence since an inadequate
sentence would not subserve the cause of
justice to the society.

1607. One more related question, which this

court is confronted with is, that what should be
the quantum of sentence in a criminal case which is
based on a criminal conspiracy involving so many
accused persons and their different roles at
different stages but to achieve the same objective.
However this question is also no more res integria
and the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering a
situation, in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Nalini ' s case
(supra) and settled that in a case involving
conspiracy by different persons at different
stages, such conspirators can be divided into
following four broad categories:

998

First, those who formed the
hardcore nucleus which took the decision
to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi.

Second, those who induced others to
join the ring and played active as well
as supervisory roles in the conspiracy.

Third, those who joined the
conspiracy by inducement whether through
indoctrination or otherwise.

Fourth those among the conspirators
who participated in the actual
commission of murder.

1608. After defining the above categories,

the Hon'ble Apex Court further held that "persons
who fall within the first category cannot normally
escape from capital punishment if their case ends
in conviction."

1609. Bearing the above principles in mind,

now let us determine what should be the quantum of
sentence as far as the five accused convicts namely
Jagtar Singh Hawara, Gurmit Singh, Lakhwinder
Singh, Shamsher Singh and Balwant Singh, who have
been convicted for commission of an offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-
B IPC, besides some other offences, are concerned.

1610. Before taking this issue, let us

consider one more plea which goes to the root of
the case as far as the quantum of sentence, is

999

concerned, in this regard, the learned counsel for
the convicts submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Shahdeo's case (supra) and Alok Nath Datta's case
(supra) held that in a case based on circumstantial
evidence, ordinarily death penalty should not be
awarded .

1611. However after going through the
principles laid down in Shahdeo's case (supra) by

the Hon'ble Apex Court, it comes out that as
submitted by learned Public Prosecutor, it was
nowhere laid down that in all cases based on
circumstantial evidence, the death penalty cannot
be imposed. On the other hand, in that case, there
was no clear evidence as to by the use of whose
fire arms, all the six deceased persons died as a
result of firing in the bus and because of those
lapses and the peculiar circumstances, it was held
that it is not a case of rarest of rare category.

1612. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court
further cautioned that the view taken in the case
is based on the peculiar circumstances of the case
and it should not be understood to mean that the
accused persons cannot be convicted under Section
302 read with Section 120-B IPC and the death
penalty cannot be imposed in the absence of various
overt acts by individual accused person. Thus it
was nowhere held that in a case of circumstantial
evidence, the death penalty cannot ordinarily be

1000

imposed. The same proposition was laid down in Alok
Nath Datta's case (supra).

1613. Before proceeding further, let us

consider another plea of the learned counsel for
the convicts, justifying the commission of this
killing by the convicts. As per learned defence
counsel Late Beant Singh was guilty of killing of
thousands of innocent Sikhs and commission of
multifarious atrocities to the Sikh Community by
indulging in fake encounters and by implicating in
false cases, as has been deposed by DW-17 Paramjit
Kaur and as such the assassin Dilawar Singh was
having no other option but to kill him and all this
has been done by him for sake of his community. And
as such these facts be kept into consideration
while sentencing them.

1614. To be more precise, the relevant

portions of the written explanation given by
convicts Gurmeet Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and Jagtar
Singh Hawara in this regard are reproduced for
ready reference:

"Beant Singh came to power by securing
votes to the extent of mere 6% as the
other major political parties boycotted
the elections. From this fact, it is
apparent that out of 100 voters in 1992
on the basis of which late Beant Singh
formed his Government. Nowhere in the
democratic world has such an

unrepresentative and illegitimate set up

1001

come into existence. Beant Singh
represented no one in the Punjab and was
a tool in the hands of the Central
Government. He was made to govern the
Punjab so as to remain a political figure
head. The State was actually governed by
the police junta of that time headed by
K. P. S.Gill, Director General of Police,
Punjab and his handlers at the Centre.
Thus during the period of Beant Singh as
Chief Minister and upto his death there
were countless false encounters wherein
innocent Sikhs were killed."

1615. Then they justified the crime by

saying that:

"Keeping in view the political, social,
religious and other circumstances in
view, it has to be accepted that the
killing of Beant Singh was not for any
personal reasons. The killings of
innocent persons in false encounters,
tortures, custodial deaths, forced
disappearances and raping of the women by
the police personnel was a strong
motivation for a self respecting man to
do something to protect the society and
the answer to oppression came in the
shape of late Dilawar Singh. It is the
story of the prosecution itself that the
motivating factor for Dilawar Singh was
the above referred unlawful and most
uncivilized atrocities of Beant Singh and
his government. Rulers of the day are not
prepared to admit that there was no other
way of putting an end to the above
referred illegal acts of late Beant Singh
and his government. There was no other
alternative. When the human system fails
as it failed during the Rule of Beant
Singh, then the divine takes over. So,
the killing of late Beant Singh was not a

1002

pure and simple murder but a divine
killing that has been done by all
incarnations worshipped in India. Thus,
the convicts are to be given sentence
keeping in view the above instances in
views as none was motivated by worldly
gain. This killing was for restoring self
respect. The Sikh history has examples of
many such instances in the past."

1616. No doubt while saying so, the learned

counsel for the convicts has referred only the name
of deceased Dilawar Singh but the contention itself
shows that it has been put forward as a
justification for the commission of this crime
which is already held to be a hand-work of convict
Jagtar Singh Hawara, who being the king-pin of this
conspiracy, planned and executed the same and even
Dilawar Singh deceased has been used as a tool by
exploiting his religious sentiments under wrongful
beliefs. And thus, this killing was not the sole
and personal plan of assassin Dilawar Singh but it
was in execution of a pre-planned and meticulously
executed conspiracy.

1617. However whatever may be the intention

of the learned counsel for the convicts while
saying so, but it certainly shows that a plea of
admission of commission of crime with a strange
justification has been put forward at this stage
and the same cannot be considered as a justified
plea, what to talk of a mitigating circumstance, as
alleged by the learned counsel for the convicts.

1003

1618. In this regard, we can draw the

support from the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Kehar Singh Vs. State (supra), known as Indira

Gandhi murder trial, where also the theory of
resentment of the Sikh community against the
operation known as 'Blue Star Operation', was

pressed into service to justify the killing of Late
Prime Minister Smt . Indira Gandhi, as is a
justification in the present case, but the same was
deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court saying that
the killing of Indira Gandhi is not simply the
murder of a human being but it is the crime of
assassination of the duly elected Prime Minister of
the country. The motive for the crime may not be
personal but the consequences of the action taken
cannot be justified on the alleged defence.

1619. On the contrary, the Hon'ble Apex

Court held that the justification is misconceived
by cautioning that:

"in our Democratic Republic, if the
Government becomes subversive of the
purpose of its creation, the people will
have the right and duty to change it by
their irresistible power of ballot and
have the Government of their own choice
wisely administered. But no person who is
duly constituted shall be eliminated by
privy to conspiracies. Indian Citizens
are committed to the Constitution. They
have faith in the ballot box. They have
confidence in the democratic

1004

institutions . They have respect for
constitutional authorities . "

1620. Perhaps the above-mentioned note of
caution laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Kehar Singh's case (supra) regarding the
justification of the killing, as is also pressed
into service in the present case, is the answer to
the plea raised by the learned counsel for the
convicts. Similarly again in State of Tamil Nath
Vs. Nalini ' s case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
reiterated that political decisions taken by an
elected head of the State, even if not suits
anybody, is not a justified ground to murder such
a person and cannot be a mitigating circumstance in
a prosecution for the murder of such a person.

1621. Thus, as per the above discussed
legal principles, the endeavour made by the learned
counsel for the convicts, justifying this killing,
is not only unconvincing but also not a
circumstance, what to talk of a mitigating
circumstance, which can be taken into consideration
for any purpose whatsoever.

1622. On the contrary, if such an
explanation is accepted, it will amount to allowing
the feudal policy of tooth for tooth and eye for
eye and everybody will start taking law in his own
hand to settle ones' own disputes or even the

1005

disputes of a community at a large. And this will
also be against the preamble of the Constitution
under which, we the People of India believe in the
unity, integrity and sovereignty of India, and
suppose to redress our grievances of any type
within the frame work of the law of the land and
by not taking the law in our own hands.

1623. Our Constitution has provided a

complete machinery to settle all types of disputes
within the frame work of law including the inter-
state disputes and the disputes to uphold and
protect the fundamental rights of every citizen of
India. Even it is brought on record that the
Hon'ble National Human Rights Commission, which is
entrusted with the constitutional duty to protect
the fundamental rights of every citizen of India,
has already intervened and ordered a full-fledged
enquiry by a retired Judge of the Hon'ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court, to look into all the complaints
as were made regarding the killing of innocent
persons in false encounters and other atrocities
committed by the police and Government machinery
and this was the legal and proper remedy available
within the parameters of law and by no stretch of
imagination, the justification put-forward by the
convicts, can be considered as a solution to the
problem, which cannot be denied to be a ingenuine
grievance .

1006

1624. Now coming to the merits of
controversy. Let us consider a balance sheet of the
aggravating and the mitigating circumstances to
decide the dispute of guantum of sentence. However
before considering these circumstances, since it
was also a case of conspiracy involving different
role of different accused persons at different
stages, it will be justified if we also categorise
the conspirators i.e. the convicts into different
categories, as per the role played by them and the
gravity of the same, as per the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Tamil
Nadu Vs . Nalini ' s case supra .

1625. Accordingly keeping in view the
findings on the points for determination leading
to the conviction of the convicts, which is based
on the evidence led by the prosecution, it comes
out that the conspirators in the present case, can
be vivisected into only two categories, keeping in
view their role in the planning and execution,
firstly, those who formed the hardcore nucleus
which took the decision to assassinate S.Beant
Singh and masterminded and co-ordinated it and the
secondly, those who joined the conspiracy by
inducement or instigation etc., whether through
indoctrination or otherwise.

1626. Accordingly, when the evidence and
the findings as to the above two categories, were

1007

applied to the convicts involved, it comes out that
as far as accused Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant
Singh are concerned, they are the conspirators of
the first category, as they were the part and
parcel of the hardcore nucleus, which took the
decision to eliminate S.Beant Singh along with
certain other accused persons, who have not been
arrested being being settled in different
countries .

1627. At the same time, it is also proved

on the file that both these convicts were the first
persons who agreed to kill S.Beant Singh and they
hatched the conspiracy by planning the entire
details and by using the remaining accused persons
for different acts at different times and at
different places as per the availability and the
utility of that person by inducing and instigating
them to join the conspiracy, by playing with their
religious sentiments, in view of the prevailing
situation of the State of Punjab at that time.
They used deceased Dilawar Singh as a human bomb by
instigating him. Then they used accused Shamsher
Singh for procuring RDX. They also used convict
Lakhwinder Singh, who was having an easy access to
the Secretariat to supervise the movements and to
know the programmes of S.Beant Singh and lastly
they used accused Gurmit Singh and his house for
the final stage of their conspiracy i.e. to prepare
the bomb and to connect the circuit to detonate the

1008

bomb as he was an Electrical Engineer.

1628. However, all the remaining three
convicts i.e. Lakhwinder Singh, Gurmit Singh and
Shamsher Singh, can be classified as the
conspirators of the second category, as they were
induced and instigated by the main convicts to join
the conspiracy and to aid and abet them to achieve
the target. However these convicts failed to
conceive that the conspiracy, which they are going
to join will not only commit a crime against a
particular person but it will also involve innocent
persons for no fault of them besides creating so
many problems for them and their families.

1629. Thus keeping in view the above
classification, as far as convicts Jagtar Singh
Hawara and Balwant Singh are concerned, as per the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Nalini ' s case (supra), both
these accused convicts being the conspirators of
the first category, cannot escape from the extreme
punishment of capital sentence and even after
comparing the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances, gua both of these convicts, it comes
out that there are more aggravating circumstances
against them than the mitigating circumstances.

1630. First of all, as far as accused
Balwant Singh is concerned, no doubt, he has very

1009

fairly and honestly confessed the commission of the
crime but the justification put forward by him is
already found to be far from the truth of the
alleged justification. At the same time, throughout
the proceedings, he kept on saying that he has no
faith in the Constitution and the legal frame work
of India and that he has no remorse for killing
S.Beant Singh and while saying so, he forget that
what was the fault of 16 innocent persons, who also
became victims of his crime.

1631. Not even this, both these convicts
were fully knowing that the mode chosen by them and
their co-conspirators for killing Beant Singh with
the help of a bomb involving special category high
explosives like RDX and PETN, was itself sufficient
to show that it will result into much more than
what has been expected by them, rather it was so
dangerous that in all probabilities, it will result
into a huge loss of life and property in a brutal
and gruesome manner and all this was master minded
and co-ordinated by accused Jagtar Singh Hawara
convict with the help of Balwant Singh convict.
This is the most aggravating circumstance which
weigh in the mind of this court while considering
the sentence to both these convicts.

1632. In Holiram Bordoloi Vs. State of
Assam, (supra) , in a case of similar facts and
circumstances, where also the accused when held

1010

guilty pleaded no remorse, the Hon'ble Apex Court
also affirming the death penalty, held that:

"Even when questioned under Section
235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, the
accused stated that he had nothing to
say on the point of sentence. The fact
that the appellant remained silent would
show that he has no repentance for the
ghastly act he committed."

1633. Besides this, one more aggravating
circumstance against convict Jagtar Singh Hawara is
that he planned a successful escape from this Jail,
where this Court is now trying this case, along
with his co-accused persons and one of this co-
accused Jagtar Singh Tara who also escaped with
him, is still at large, and this act and conduct of
this convict proves him to be a conspirator of the
first category, who deserves no leniency.

1634. Even it is alleged by the prosecution
that after escaping from the Jail, he did not stop
his criminal activities and was involved in three
cases at Delhi out of which two are under sections
302, 307 IPC etc. and the third one is under
section 121, 121-A IPC etc. Besides this, he is
also involved in more than 11 cases under different
sections at different places in Punjab and
Chandigarh. And thus there is no probability of the
reformation and rehabilitation of both these
convicts and there is every probability that they

1011

will again indulge in similar crimes and thus are a
continuing threat to the society.

1635. Not even this, as mentioned earlier,
this convict in his written explanation, has
justified the killing of S.Beant Singh and other
innocent persons, with a totally misconceived
justification which is already held to be not
tenable and he even expressed no remorse for this
killings, but alleged that the killing of S.Beant
Singh was not a pure and simple murder but a divine
killing and thereby compared himself with the
divine powers, which again in the peculiar facts
and circumstances, an aggravating circumstance,
coupled with the fact that it was he, who had
masterminded and coordinated this killings.

1636. Thus the above facts clearly spell
out that there are more aggravating circumstances
than the mitigating circumstances against convicts
Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant Singh. Needless to
say that the blast caused by the accused convicts
results into death of 17 persons and thus is
enormous and itself an instance of extremely
diabolical and committed in a dastardly manner
which arouse intence and extreme indignation of the
society .

1637. At the same time, as held in State
Vs. Navjot Sandhu's case (supra), the very idea of

1012

killing the chief minister in the Secretariat by
using a bomb made of RDX etc. and causing explosion
imperiling the safety of a multitude of employees
and other elected representatives, in this
conspiracy, which was master minded by both these
convicts that too in a preplanned and meticulous
manner .

1638. As far as the plea of delay in the
trial is concerned it is not a mitigating
circumstance because the defence is also egually
responsible for the delay and at the same time it
is also not a ground to show any leniency as held
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pratap Singh Vs.
State of Jharkhand's case (supra).

1639. Thus from the above facts one thing
is clear that as far as both these accused convicts
persons are concerned, the gravity of the crime
conceived by the these conspirators with the
potential of causing enormous casualties and
dislocating the functioning of the Government as
well as disrupting normal life of the people of the
State, is something, which cannot be described in
words. The incident, which results in heavy
casualties, had shaken the conscience of the entire
State and the collective conscience of the society
will only be satisfied if the capital punishment is
awarded to both these convicts. Hence for these
special reasons, both the above convicts deserve

1013

only and only extreme punishment.

1640. However, as far as the remaining
three convicts namely Lakhwinder Singh, Gurmit
Singh and Shamsher Singh are concerned, they are
found to be conspirators of the second category,
who have been induced and instigated by the
conspirators of the first category, to join this
conspiracy and to do different acts of omission and
commission, which they did accordingly and thus
they are also liable for the punishment in this
regard but while doing so, there are certain
favourable mitigating circumstances, which justify
their plea for lesser sentence in comparison to the
conspirators of the first category.

1641. First of all, as argued by the
learned counsel for these convicts, they are not
previous offenders or criminals as no such evidence
has been brought on the file by the prosecution
against them. Secondly, they joined the conspiracy
at a later stage, that too, for a single act by the
instigation and goading of the main conspirators of
the first category, by exploiting their religious
sentiments. Even convict Shamsher Singh apart from
helping convict Jagatr Singh Hawara for bringing
RDX, has not played any other role or committed any
other overt act, which in the facts and
circumstance of this case, can be considered as a
mitigating circumstances as far as the guantum of

1014

sentence is concerned.

1642. Above all, there is also nothing on

the file to say that these convicts were the
previous offenders or involved in any other
criminal activities and as such there is no
possibility of their reformation and

rehabilitation. On the contrary, their act and
conduct coupled with their roles forces this court
to say that atleast these three convicts can be
reformed and rehabilitated as a responsible citizen
of India.

1643. This court is not oblivious of the

settled proposition of law that the criminal law
adheres in general to the principle of
proportionality in prescribing liability according
to the culpability of each kind of criminal
conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant
discretion to the judge in arriving at a sentence
in each case, presumably to permit sentences that
reflects more subtle considerations of culpability
that are raised by the special facts of the each
case and each accused even if they are convicted
for the same offence. Judges in essence affirm that
punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in
practice sentences are determined largely by other
considerations. Some times it is the correctional
needs of the perpetrator that are offered to
justify a sentence. Some times the desirability of

1015

keeping him out of circulation, and
the terrific results of his crime.

sometimes

even

1644. Thus after taking an over-all view of
the circumstances, in the light of the aforesaid
propositions and taking into account the answers to
the guestions posed by way of the test for the
rarest of the rare cases, the circumstances of the
present case are such that as far as convicts
Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant Singh, are
concerned, they are proved to be the conspirators
of first category, who had masterminded and
executed this conspiracy with meticulous details
and are beyond reformation and rehabilitation and
thus a threat to the society and only death penalty
would be the answer to the crime committed and
perpetuated by them by playing with sentiments of
the other accused persons . Whereas the remaining
three convicts are proved to be the members of the
second category, who were induced and instigated
to commit this crime and thus deserves lessor
sentence .

1645. Now coming to the sentence gua Nasib
Singh, it comes out that as held earlier, he has no
concern whatsoever with the conspiracy and this
killings. On the contrary, he has been a victim of
hostile circumstances and kept the RDX in his house
without knowing and perceiving its dangers to the
society. At the same time, he is an old man of 63

1016

years of age and being at the fag end of his life,
he deserves leniency specially when he has already
undergone a custody of about 12 years during the
pendency of this trial even not being a part and
parcel of this conspiracy.

1646. As a seguel to the above discussion,

all the convicts are sentenced as follows:

Name of accused Under

Section

Sentenced
to

l.Nasib Singh

5 (b) of
Explosive
Substances
Act .

2.Balwant Singh i) 302 r/w
and S.120-B IPC

Jagtar Singh
Hawara

To undergo rigorous
imprisonment for
10 years and to pay
a fine of Rs.10,000/-
failing which to
further undergo
simple imprisonment
for three years.

Sentenced to death
and both of them be
hanged by neck till
they are dead. They
are also sentenced
to pay a fine of
Rs.7,000/- each,
and in default of
payment of fine, to
further undergo
simple imprisonment
for a period of
three years each.

1017

ii) 307 r/w rigorous imprisonment
S.120-B IPC. for 10 years and to

pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- each,
and in default of
payment of fine, to
further undergo
simple imprisonment
for a period of
three years each.

iii) 306 r/w rigorous imprisonment
S.109 r/w for 10 years and to

S.120-B of pay a fine of
IPC. Rs.5,000/- each,

and in default of
payment of fine, to
further undergo
simple imprisonment
for a period of
three years each.

iv) 3 (b) rigorous imprisonment
r/w S.6 of for life and to pay
Explosives a fine of Rs.5,000/-
Substances each & in default of
Act. payment of fine, to

further undergo
simple imprisonment
for a period of
three years each.

v) 4(b) (ii) rigorous imprisonment
r/w S.6 of for 10 yrs and to pay
Explosives a fine of Rs.5,000/-
Substances each & in default of
Act. payment of fine, to

further undergo
simple imprisonment
for a period of
three years each.

1018

vi) 5 (b) rigorous imprisonment

r/w S.6 of for 10 yrs and to pay
Explosives a fine of Rs . 5,000/-
Substances each & in default of
Act. payment of fine, to

further undergo
simple imprisonment
for a period of
three years each.

3. Gurmit Singh i)302 r/w
Lakhwinder 120-B IPC.
Singh, and
Shamsher
Singh

imprisonment for
life (each) and to
pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- each, and
in default of payment
of fine to further
undergo simple
imprisonment for
three years each.

ii) 307 r/w rigorous imprisonment
S. 120-B IPC. for 10 years and to

pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- each,
and in default of
payment of fine, to
further undergo
simple imprisonment
for a period of
three years each.

iii) 306 r/w rigorous imprisonment
S.109 r/w for 10 years and to

S. 120-B of pay a fine of
IPC. Rs.5,000/- each,

and in default of
payment of fine, to
further undergo
simple imprisonment
for a period of
three years each.

1019

iv) 3 (b) rigorous imprisonment

r/w S.6 of for life and to pay
Explosives a fine of Rs.5,000/-
Substances each & in default of
Act. payment of fine, to

further undergo
simple imprisonment
for a period of
three years each.

v) 4(b) (ii) rigorous imprisonment
r/w S.6 of for 10 yrs and to pay
Explosives a fine of Rs . 5,000/-
Substances each & in default of
Act. payment of fine, to

further undergo
simple imprisonment
for a period of
three years each.

vi) 5 (b) rigorous imprisonment

r/w S.6 of for 10 yrs and to pay
Explosives a fine of Rs. 5,000/-
Substances each & in default of
Act. payment of fine, to

further undergo
simple imprisonment
for a period of
three years each.

1647. Since accused convict Nasib Singh has

already undergone the sentence awarded, as such, as
per the provisions of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C,
he be released, if not required in any other case,
subject to depositing of the fine.

1020

1648. All the sentences awarded to the
remaining accused persons shall run concurrently.
The period of custody already undergone by these
convicts during the pendency of this trial will be
set-off against the substantive sentence, as per
the provisions of Section 428 Cr.PC. As far as the
word "imprisonment for life" used in this order is
concerned, as held by the Constitutional Bench of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gopal Vinayak Godse Vs.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 1960 S.C. 600 and as
reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Munna
Vs. Union of India 2005 Crl.L.J. 4124, the word
"imprisonment for life" must be treated as rigorous
imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period
of the convict persons natural life.

1649. Let reference as per the provisions
of Section 366 Cr.PC be made to the Hon'ble High
Court for the confirmation of death sentence of
accused-convicts Jagtar Singh Hawara and Balwant
Singh along with the proceedings of the case. Till
then, both these accused convicts stand committed
to custody as per the provisions of Section 366 (2)
of the Cr.PC.

1650. Necessary warrant be prepared and
forwarded to the Superintendent, Model Jail,
Burail, Chandigarh, against all the accused

1021

convicts as per the details and directions given
above. Copy of the judgment be supplied to all the
convicts free of costs as per law.

1651. File be consigned to records after

due compliance.

Pronounced in the open court at Burail Jail, on
July 31, 2007 at Chandigarh.

(Ravi Kumar Sondhi ) ,
Additional Sessions Judge,
Camp at Burail Jail,
Chandigarh .

1022